Functional Status Among Survivors of In-Hospital Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

Published in: Archives of Internal Medicine, v. 157, no. 1, Jan. 13, 1997, p. 72-76

Posted on on January 01, 1997

by John D. Fitzgerald, Neil S. Wenger, Robert M. Califf, Russell S. Phillips, Norman A. Desbiens, Honghu H. Liu, Joanne Lynn, Albert W. Wu, Alfred F. Connors, Jr., Robert K. Oye

OBJECTIVES: To describe functional outcomes of seriously ill patients who survived 2 months after in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and to identify patient and clinical characteristics associated with worse functional status after CPR. METHODS: Multicenter prospective observational analysis of 162 seriously ill hospitalized patients who survived 2 months after CPR. Analysis of clinical characteristics associated with worse functional outcome. RESULTS: Among 162 survivors of in-hospital CPR, 56% had the same or improved function and 44% had worse function at 2 months compared with functional status before CPR. Patients with worse function deteriorated by a mean of 3.9 activities of daily living and were less likely to survive to hospital discharge (P < .001) or to 6 months after study entry (P < .001). Worse functional outcome was associated with greater age and longer hospital stay before CPR. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of CPR survivors had preserved functional status 2 months after CPR. However, patients with worse function are profoundly disabled. In anticipation of possible severe disability after CPR, preferences for care in such health states should be discussed with patients before the need for CPR, particularly among older patients and those with long hospital stays.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.