Validation of the CaRdiac Arrest Survival Score (CRASS) for predicting good neurological outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in an Asian emergency medical service system

• Published in: Resuscitation Vol. 176; pp. 42 - 50
• Main Authors: Liu, Nan, Wnent, Jan, Lee, Jin Wee, Ning, Yilin, Ho, Andrew Fu Wah, Siddiqui, Fahad Javaid, Lim, Shir Lynn, Chia, Michael Yih-Chong, Tiah, Ling, Mao, Desmond Ren-Hao, Gräsner, Jan-Thorsten, Ong, Marcus Eng Hock, Gan, Han Nee, Cheah, Si Oon, Ng, Wei Ming, Tay, Wei Ling, Leong, Benjamin S.H., Nadarajan, Gayathri, Doctor, Nausheen Edwin, Tham, Lai Peng, Arulanandam, Shalini
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Ireland Elsevier B.V 01-07-2022
• Subjects: Asia; Cardiac arrest; Emergency medical service; Neurological outcome; Score; Survival; Score; Emergency medical service; Asia; Survival; Neurological outcome; Cardiac arrest
• ISSN: 0300-9572; 1873-1570
• DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2022.04.028

Survival with favorable neurological outcomes is an important indicator of successful resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We sought to validate the CaRdiac Arrest Survival Score (CRASS), derived using data from the German Resuscitation Registry, in predicting the likelihood of good neurological outcomes after OHCA in Singapore.
We conducted a retrospective population-based validation study among EMS-attended OHCA patients (≥18 years) in Singapore, using data from the prospective Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes Study registry. Good neurological outcome was defined as a cerebral performance category of 1 or 2. To evaluate the CRASS score in light of the difference in patient characteristics, we used the default constant coefficient (0.8) and the adjusted coefficient (0.2) to calculate the probability of good neurological outcomes.
Out of 11,404 analyzed patients recruited between April 2010 and December 2018, 260 had good and 11,144 had poor neurological function. The CRASS score demonstrated good discrimination, with an area under the curve of 0.963 (95% confidence interval: 0.952–0.974). Using the default constant coefficient of 0.8, the CRASS score consistently overestimated the predicted probability of a good outcome. Following adjustment of the coefficient to 0.2, the CRASS score showed improved calibration.
CRASS demonstrated good discrimination and moderate calibration in predicting favorable neurological outcomes in the validation Singapore cohort. Our study established a good foundation for future large-scale, cross-country validations of the CRASS score in diverse sociocultural, geographical, and clinical settings.