Introduction
Ongoing changes in post resuscitation medicine and society create a range of ethical challenges for clinicians. Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment is a very sensitive, complex decision to be made by the treatment team and the relatives together. According to the guidelines, prognostication after cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be based on a combination of clinical examination, biomarkers, imaging, and electrophysiological testing. Several prognostic scores exist to predict neurological and mortality outcome in post-cardiac arrest patients. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis and systematic review of current scoring systems used after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
Materials and methods
Our systematic search was conducted in four databases: Medline, Embase, Central and Scopus on 24th April 2023. The patient population consisted of successfully resuscitated adult patients after OHCA. We included all prognostic scoring systems in our analysis suitable to estimate neurologic function as the primary outcome and mortality as the secondary outcome. For each score and outcome, we collected the AUC (area under curve) values and their CIs (confidence iterval) and performed a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled AUC estimates with 95% CI. To visualize the trade-off between sensitivity and specificity achieved using different thresholds, we created the Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) curves.
Results
24,479 records were identified, 51 of which met the selection criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis. Of these, 24 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. The performance of CAHP (Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis) (0.876 [0.853–0.898]) and OHCA (0.840 [0.824–0.856]) was good to predict neurological outcome at hospital discharge, and TTM (Targeted Temperature Management) (0.880 [0.844–0.916]), CAHP (0.843 [0.771–0.915]) and OHCA (0.811 [0.759–0.863]) scores predicted good the 6-month neurological outcome. We were able to confirm the superiority of the CAHP score especially in the high specificity range based on our sensitivity and specificity analysis.
Conclusion
Based on our results CAHP is the most accurate scoring system for predicting the neurological outcome at hospital discharge and is a bit less accurate than TTM score for the 6-month outcome. We recommend the use of the CAHP scoring system in everyday clinical practice not only because of its accuracy and the best performance concerning specificity but also because of the rapid and easy availability of the necessary clinical data for the calculation.
