Back

Favourable discharge after cardiac arrest across APACHE IVa-predicted hospital mortality: a multicentre observational study

Gorenshtein, A.; Srour, A.; Adiniaev, Y.; Barash, Y.; Klang, E.; Daniel, O.

2026-09-14 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.64898/2026.09.13.26362943 medRxiv
Show abstract

Aim: General ICU severity scores predict hospital mortality across heterogeneous populations, not recovery within one diagnosis. We described favourable discharge across the range of APACHE IVa-predicted hospital mortality after cardiac arrest, and tested whether any bedside subgroup fell below a pre-specified benchmark. Methods: Observational cohort of 3,641 first ICU admissions in 161 eICU hospitals with a cardiac-arrest diagnosis documented within 24 hours. The exposure was APACHE IVa-predicted hospital mortality; the outcome was favourable discharge (home or rehabilitation), a functional-outcome proxy. Fourteen bedside subgroups were pre-specified; the benchmark required an upper 95% bound below 5%. Results: Favourable discharge occurred in 1,039 (28.5%), falling from 78.9% in the lowest predicted-mortality decile to 4.1% in the highest (trend z, -27.2; P < 0.001). Among 2,139 patients with predicted mortality at or above 50%, 301 (14.1%; 95% CI, 12.6 to 15.6) had a favourable discharge; among 281 at or above 90%, 9 (3.2%) did. No subgroup had an upper 95% bound below 5%; the lowest was 8 of 264 (3.0%; 95% CI, 1.3 to 5.9). At a more permissive 10% benchmark, two qualified. Among 1,961 not obeying commands, 263 (13.4%) had a favourable discharge. Discrimination did not differ detectably between unfavourable functional outcome (AUROC 0.789) and in-hospital death (0.774; P = 0.078). Conclusion: Favourable discharge declined as predicted mortality rose but remained observable at the highest risk levels, and no pre-specified subgroup was bounded below 5%. A general ICU mortality estimate is not on its own evidence that a favourable outcome is absent.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.