The relevance of severity scores in predicting outcome after cardiac arrest

The current significance of the FOUR score: A systematic review and critical analysis of the literature

BACKGROUND

The Full Outline of Un-Responsiveness Score (FOURs) is a scale for clinical assessment of consciousness that was introduced to overcome disadvantages of the widely accepted Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS).

OBJECTIVE

To carry out a systematic review and critical analysis of the available literature on the clinical application of FOURs and perform a comparison to GCS, in terms of reliability and predictive value.

METHODS

Initial search retrieved a total of 147 papers. After applying strict inclusion criteria and further article selection to overcome data heterogeneity, a statistical comparison of inter-rater reliability, in-hospital mortality and long-term outcome prediction between the two scales in the adult and pediatric population was done.

RESULTS

Even though FOURs is more complicated than GCS, its application remains quite simple. Its reliability, validity and predictive value have been supported by an increasing number of studies, especially in critical care. A statistically significant difference (p = .034) in predicting in-hospital mortality in adults, in favor of FOURs when compared to GCS, was found. However, whether it poses a clinically significant advantage in detecting patients' deterioration and outcome prediction, compared to other scaling systems, remains unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies are needed to discern the FOURs' clinical usefulness, especially in patients in non-critical condition, with milder disorders of consciousness.

Validation of the Pittsburgh Cardiac Arrest Category illness severity score

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to validate the ability of an early post-cardiac arrest illness severity classification to predict patient outcomes.

METHODS

The Pittsburgh Cardiac Arrest Category (PCAC) is a 4-level illness severity score that was found to be strongly predictive of outcomes in the initial derivation study. We assigned PCAC scores to consecutive in and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest subjects treated at two tertiary care centers between January 2011 and September 2013. We made assignments prospectively at Site 1 and retrospectively at Site 2. Our primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. Inter-rater reliability of retrospective PCAC assessments was assessed. Secondary outcomes were favorable discharge disposition (home or acute rehabilitation), Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) and modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at hospital discharge. We tested the association of PCAC with each outcome using unadjusted and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

We included 607 cardiac arrest patients during the study (393 at Site 1 and 214 at Site 2). Site populations differed in age, arrest location, rhythm, use of hypothermia and distribution of PCAC. Inter-rater reliability of retrospective PCAC assignments was excellent (κ=0.81). PCAC was associated with survival (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for Site 1: 0.33 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-0.41)) Site 2: 0.32 (95% CI 0.24-0.43) even after adjustment for other clinical variables (adjusted OR Site 1: 0.32 (95% CI 0.25-0.41) Site 2: 0.31 (95% CI 0.22-0.44)). PCAC was predictive of secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that PCAC is strongly predictive of survival and good functional outcome after cardiac arrest.