While I really enjoyed the topic and most of the video, it seems quite a reach to state that “less than 5% survive when standard ACLS PEA arrest algorhithm is applied” or especially “this patient (with pseudoPEA) would have had less than 5% chance of surviving with standard ACLS algorhithm”, as it implies that the algorhithm itself would worsen the outcome in those who actually were in pseudo-PEA. As for me it seems way more intuitive that those with pseudoPEA would form a majority of those 5% who survive while those with true PEA would dominate the remaining 95% that do not make it, even when applying standard algorhithm. As you yourself stated, every PEA case is unique, and it would hardly be true to assume that every single PEA patient shares a 5% chance of survival, as it seems more likely that some PEA patients have way better chances just due to their underlying pathology, just as some PEA patients have a chance way worse than 5% to start with. The way I see it is that 5% is a mean survival of a large heterogenous PEA population, formed by several very different subgroups with very different odds of survival, and these would be mostly determined by the pathological scenario, not the approach applied. I think that those with pseudoPEA usually tend to have better chance of survival regardless whether you apply standard ACLS or your modified approach, even though the modified approach would provide even better odds.

That is why I find it hard to believe that applying standard ACLS algorhithm for a patient with pseudoPEA would itself worsen the chance of survival from lets say 30 to less than 5 %. The standard algorhithm includes looking for underlying cause, too.