Dataset Information

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: AIM:To assess the use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), compared with manual or mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in adults and children. METHODS:The PRISMA guidelines were followed. We searched Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews for randomized clinical trials and observational studies published before May 22, 2018. The population included adult and pediatric patients with OHCA and IHCA of any origin. Two investigators reviewed studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the ROBINS-I tool. Outcomes included short-term and long-term survival and favorable neurological outcome. RESULTS:We included 25 observational studies, of which 15 studies were in adult OHCA, 7 studies were in adult IHCA, and 3 studies were in pediatric IHCA. There were no studies in pediatric OHCA. No randomized trials were included. Results from individual studies were largely inconsistent, although several studies in adult and pediatric IHCA were in favor of ECPR. The risk of bias for individual studies was overall assessed to be critical, with confounding being the primary source of bias. The overall quality of evidence was assessed to be very low. Heterogeneity across studies precluded any meaningful meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS:There is inconclusive evidence to either support or refute the use of ECPR for OHCA and IHCA in adults and children. The quality of evidence across studies is very low.

SUBMITTER: Holmberg MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6441971 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

Holmberg Mathias J MJ Geri Guillaume G Wiberg Sebastian S Guerguerian Anne-Marie AM Donnino Michael W MW Nolan Jerry P JP Deakin Charles D CD Andersen Lars W LW

Resuscitation 20180729

<h4>Aim</h4>To assess the use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), compared with manual or mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in adults and children.<h4>Methods</h4>The PRISMA guidelines were followed. We searched Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews for randomized clinical trials and observational studies published before May 22, 2018. The population included adult and ...[more]

PMID: 30063963

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known of nosocomial infections (NI) in patients who suffer from in-hospital cardiac arrest who undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This study aimed to investigate clinical pictures of NI, and the association of NIs with clinical outcomes in in-hospital cardiac arrest patients who undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.MethodsTo evaluate the incidence and clinical characteristics of NI in patients who undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, a retrospective cohort study was conducted in a single tertiary referral center between January 2010 and December 2018. We included adult patients who undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest and excluded patients who were out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or failed ECMO implantation. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared between NI and Non-NI patients, or multidrug-resistant (MDR) and non-MDR. The independent risk factors associated with NIs were also analyzed using multivariable logistic regression model.ResultsThirty-five (23.3%) patients developed a NI. These cases included 21 patients with a gram negative (G-) infection, 12 patients with a gram positive (G+) bacterial infection, and two patients with fungal infection. Pneumonia was the most common type of NIs, followed by catheter-related infection. The in-hospital mortality and neurologic outcomes at discharge were not different between the NI and non-NI groups. Multidrug-resistant (MDR) pathogens were detected in 10 cases (28.6%). The MDR NI patients had a higher ICU mortality than did those with non-MDR NI (80% vs. 32%, p = 0.028). Following multivariable adjustment, body mass index (adjusted OR 0.87, 95% CI, 0.77-0.97, p = 0.016) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation to pump on time (adjusted OR 1.04, 95% CI, 1.01-1.06, p = 0.001) were independent predictors of NI development.ConclusionsIn patients who received extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, NIs were not associated with an increase in in-hospital mortality. However, NIs with MDR organisms do increase the risk of in-hospital mortality. Lower body mass index and longer low flow time were significant predictors of NI development.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The prognosis in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at hospital arrival is often considered dismal. The use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) for perfusion enhancement during resuscitation has shown variable results. We aimed to investigate outcome in refractory OHCA patients managed conservatively without use of eCPR. METHODS:We included consecutive OHCA patients with refractory arrest or prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in the Copenhagen area in 2002-2011. RESULTS:A total of 3992 OHCA patients with resuscitation attempts were included; in 2599, treatment was terminated prehospital, and 1393 (35%) were brought to the hospital either with ROSC (n?=?1285, 92%) or with refractory OHCA (n?=?108, 8%). Of patients brought in with refractory OHCA, 56 (52%) achieved ROSC in the emergency department. There were no differences between patients with refractory OHCA or prehospital ROSC with regard to age, sex, comorbidities, or etiology of OHCA. Time to emergency medical services (EMS) arrival was similar, whereas time to ROSC (when ROSC was achieved) was longer in refractory OHCA patients (EMS, 6 (5-9] vs. 7 [5-10] min, p?=?0.8; ROSC, 15 [9-22] vs. 27 [20-41] min, p?<?0.001). Independent factors associated with transport with refractory OHCA instead of prehospital termination of therapy were OHCA in public (OR, 3.6 [95% CI, 2.2-5.8]; p?<?0.001), witnessed OHCA (OR, 3.7 [2.0-7.1]; p?<?0.001), shockable rhythm (OR, 3.0 [1.9-4.7]; p?<?0.001), younger age (OR, 1.2 [1.1-1.2]; p?<?0.001), and later calendar year (OR, 1.4 [1.2-1.6]; p?<?0.001). Thirty-day survival was 20% in patients with refractory OHCA compared with 42% in patients with prehospital ROSC (p?<?0.001). Four of 28 refractory OHCA patients with duration of resuscitation >?60 min achieved ROSC. No difference in favorable neurological outcome in patients surviving to discharge was found (prehospital ROSC 84% vs. refractory OHCA 86%; p?=?0.7). CONCLUSIONS:Survival after refractory OHCA with ongoing CPR at hospital arrival was significantly lower than among patients with prehospital ROSC. Despite a lower survival, the majority of survivors with both refractory OHCA and prehospital ROSC were discharged with a similar degree of favorable neurological outcome, indicating that continued efforts in spite of refractory OHCA are not in vain and may still lead to favorable outcome even without eCPR.

Project description:Introduction:In this systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched cohort studies, we quantitatively summarize whether venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) used as extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), compared with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR), is associated with improved rates of 30-day and long-term favorable neurological outcomes and survival in patients resuscitated from in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Methods:We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar for eligible studies on January 14, 2019. All searches were limited to studies published between January 2000 and January 2019. Two investigators independently evaluated the quality (or certainty) of evidence according to GRADE guidelines. Pooled results are presented as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results:Six cohort studies using propensity score-matched analysis were included, totaling 1108 matched patients. Pooled analyses showed that ECPR was likely associated with improved 30-day and long-term favorable neurological outcome in adults compared to CCPR for in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (RR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.29-3.16; I2 = 20%, P = 0.002; very low-quality evidence) and (RR = 2.86, 95% CI = 1.64-5.01; I2 = 0%, P = 0.0002; moderate-quality evidence), respectively. When we analyzed in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest separately, ECPR was likely associated with improved 30-day favorable neurological outcome compared to CCPR for in-hospital cardiac arrest (RR = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.24-3.81; I2 = 9%, P = 0.006; very low-quality evidence), but not for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (RR = 2.61, 95% CI = 0.56-12.20; I2 = 59%, P = 0.22; very low-quality evidence). ECPR was also likely associated with improved long-term favorable neurological outcome compared to CCPR for in-hospital cardiac arrest (RR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.33-4.71; I2 = 0%, P = 0.005; moderate-quality evidence) and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (RR = 4.64, 95% CI = 1.41-15.25; I2 = 0%, P = 0.01; moderate-quality evidence). Conclusions:Our analysis suggests that VA-ECMO used as ECPR may improve long-term favorable neurological outcomes and survival when compared to the best standard of care in a selected patient population. Therefore, it is imperative for well-designed randomized clinical trials to obtain a higher level of scientific evidence to ensure optimal outcomes for cardiac arrest patients.

Dataset Information

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

Publications

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets