Dataset Information

Efficacy of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adult cardiac arrest patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: We performed a meta-analysis to compare the impact of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) to that of conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) in adult patients who experience cardiac arrest of cardiac origin. A literature search was performed using criteria set forth in a predefined protocol. Report inclusion criteria were that ECPR was compared to CCPR in adult patients with cardiac arrest of cardiac origin, and that survival and neurological outcome data were available. Exclusion criteria were reports describing non-cardiac origin arrest, review articles, editorials, and nonhuman studies. The efficacies of ECPR and CCPR were compared in terms of survival and neurological outcome. A total of 38,160 patients from 7 studies were ultimately included. ECPR showed similar survival (odds ratio [OR] 2.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-11.20) and neurologic outcomes (OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.66-14.85) to CCPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. For in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) patients, however, ECPR was associated with significantly better survival (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.44-3.98) and neurologic outcomes (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.38-5.02) than CCPR. Hence, ECPR may be more effective than CCPR as an adjuvant therapy for survival and neurologic outcome in cardiac-origin IHCA patients.

SUBMITTER: Ahn C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5034223 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adult cardiac arrest patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ahn Chiwon C Kim Wonhee W Cho Youngsuk Y Choi Kyu-Sun KS Jang Bo-Hyoung BH Lim Tae Ho TH

Scientific reports 20160923

We performed a meta-analysis to compare the impact of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) to that of conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) in adult patients who experience cardiac arrest of cardiac origin. A literature search was performed using criteria set forth in a predefined protocol. Report inclusion criteria were that ECPR was compared to CCPR in adult patients with cardiac arrest of cardiac origin, and that survival and neurological outcome data were available ...[more]

PMID: 27659306

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) compared the clinical efficacy of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) with conventional CPR (CCPR) for adult patients who experienced in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) or out-of-hospital CA (OHCA).MethodsA literature search was used to identify eligible publications (up to 30 July 2018) from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the ISI Web of Knowledge, and Embase. Two investigators independently conducted the literature search, study selection, data extraction, and quality evaluation. Meta-analysis and TSA were used to analyze each outcome, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate the level of evidence. The primary outcome was 30-day survival, and the secondary outcomes were 30-day neurologic outcome, 3-6 months' survival, 3-6 months' neurological outcome, 1-year survival, and 1-year neurological outcome.ResultsWe identified 13 eligible observational studies for the final analysis. Pooled analyses showed that ECPR was associated with a significantly better 30-day survival (RR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.25-2.06) and 30-day neurologic outcome (RR = 2.69, 95% CI = 1.63-4.46), and TSA confirmed these results. However, subgroup analysis of patients with OHCA indicated that ECPR and CCPR had similar effects on 30-day survival (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.71-1.97), which was not confirmed by TSA. Analysis of OHCA patients indicated that ECPR provided a better 30-day neurological outcome (RR = 3.93, 95% CI = 1.00-15.50), but TSA did not support these results. Analysis of IHCA patients indicated that ECPR was associated with a better 30-day survival (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.43-2.52) and 30-day neurologic outcome (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.21-3.39), and TSA supported these results. Other subgroup analyses showed that the results were generally consistent, regardless of nation, propensity score matching, presumed etiology, whether the CA was witnessed or not, and study quality.ConclusionsRelative to CCPR, ECPR improved the survival and neurological outcome of patients who had IHCA. Compared to IHCA patients, TSA could not confirm better survival and neurologic outcome of ECPR in OHCA patients, suggesting that further studies are needed.Trial registrationThis trial was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018100513) on 17 July 2018.

Project description:To investigate the effects of the combination of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and thrombolytic therapy on the recovery of vital organ function after prolonged cardiac arrest.Laboratory investigation.University laboratory.Pigs.Animals underwent 30-minute untreated ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest followed by extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for 6 hours. Animals were allocated into two experimental groups: t-extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (t-ECPR) group, which received streptokinase 1 million units, and control extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (c-ECPR), which did not receive streptokinase. In both groups, the resuscitation protocol included the following physiologic targets: mean arterial pressure greater than 70 mm Hg, cerebral perfusion pressure greater than 50 mm Hg, PaO2 150 ± 50 torr (20 ± 7 kPa), PaCO2 40 ± 5 torr (5 ± 1 kPa), and core temperature 33°C ± 1°C. Defibrillation was attempted after 30 minutes of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.A cardiac resuscitability score was assessed on the basis of success of defibrillation, return of spontaneous heart beat, weanability from extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and left ventricular systolic function after weaning. The addition of thrombolytic to extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation significantly improved cardiac resuscitability (3.7 ± 1.6 in t-ECPR vs 1.0 ± 1.5 in c-ECPR). Arterial lactate clearance was higher in t-ECPR than in c-ECPR (40% ± 15% vs 18% ± 21%). At the end of the experiment, the intracranial pressure was significantly higher in c-ECPR than in t-ECPR. Recovery of brain electrical activity, as assessed by quantitative analysis of electroencephalogram signal, and ischemic neuronal injury on histopathologic examination did not differ between groups. Animals in t-ECPR group did not have increased bleeding complications, including intracerebral hemorrhages.In a porcine model of prolonged cardiac arrest, t-ECPR improved cardiac resuscitability and reduced brain edema, without increasing bleeding complications. However, early electroencephalogram recovery and ischemic neuronal injury were not improved.

Project description:BackgroundVeno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has increasingly emerged as a feasible treatment to mitigate the progressive multiorgan dysfunction that occurs during cardiac arrest, in support of further resuscitation efforts.ObjectivesBecause the recent systematic review commissioned in 2018 by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Advanced Life Support task did not include studies without a control group, our objective was to conduct a review incorporating these studies to increase available evidence supporting the use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for cardiac arrest patients, while waiting for high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science) were searched for eligible studies from database inception to July 20, 2020. The population of interest was adult patients who had suffered cardiac arrest in any setting. We included all cohort studies with 1 exposure/1 group and descriptive studies (ie, case series studies). We excluded RCTs, non-RCTs, and observational analytic studies with a control group. Outcomes included short-term survival and favorable neurological outcome. Short-term outcomes (ie, hospital discharge, 30 days, and 1 month) were combined into a single category.ResultsOur searches of databases and other sources yielded a total of 4302 citations. Sixty-two eligible studies were included (including a combined total of 3638 participants). Six studies were of in-hospital cardiac arrest, 34 studies were of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 22 studies included both in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Seven hundred and sixty-eight patients of 3352 (23%) had short-term survival; whereas, 602 of 3366 (18%) survived with favorable neurological outcome, defined as a cerebral performance category score of 1 or 2.ConclusionsCurrent clinical evidence is mostly drawn from observational studies, with their potential for confounding selection bias. Although studies without controls cannot supplant case-control or cohort studies, several ECPR studies without a control group show successful resuscitation with impressive results that may provide valuable information to inform a comparison.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adult cardiac arrest patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Efficacy of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adult cardiac arrest patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets