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 RAND.org 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

Read More

Access further information on this document at archinte.jamanetwork.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

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.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

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.