Acute cardiac care & resuscitationCohort study

Pulseless electrical activity versus asystole as initial pulseless rhythm in children: challenging convention regarding non-shockable rhythms

ResuscitationPublished

  • registry analysis
  • mixed-effects regression
  • American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation (GWTG®-R) registry (2000-2023)

Authors' conclusion

PEA and asystole differ in patient characteristics and short-term resuscitation outcomes in pediatric IHCA. However, the overall survival difference appears driven by neonates and NICU-associated events, with no significant survival difference in older children.

Study context

Population
Pediatric (<18 years) in-hospital cardiac arrest cases with an initial rhythm of pulseless electrical activity (PEA) or asystolePEA 5,416 · asystole 4,007
Participants
9,423 patients
Exposure
asystole compared with PEA
  • asystolen = 4,007 (42.5%)
  • PEAn = 5,416 (57.5%)reference

Main finding

ROSC

Adjusted odds ratio

0.70

95% CI 0.64–0.77

asystole vs PEA
aOR 0.70 (95% CI 0.64–0.77)

As reported in the abstract

Observational data: associations, not effects.

Further findings

OutcomePEAasystoleaOR (95% CI)
ROC · lower odds with asystole0.71 (0.64–0.78)
survival to discharge · lower odds with asystole0.89 (0.81–0.99)
survival to discharge, NICU-excluded cohort · no longer differed36.1%34.1%0.99 (0.90–1.11)

Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and ROC, NICU-excluded cohort

asystole remained associated with lower odds of ROSC and ROC

survival to discharge, age-stratified

overall survival difference was driven by neonates; in older age groups, survival to discharge did not differ between PEA and asystole

Original publication

Pulseless electrical activity versus asystole as initial pulseless rhythm in children: challenging convention regarding non-shockable rhythms. Resuscitation. Published 3 September 2026. doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2026.111289

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it