Dataset Information

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of extracorporeal-CPR versus conventional-CPR for adult patients in cardiac arrest.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:The probability of surviving a cardiac arrest remains low. International resuscitation guidelines state that extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) may have a role in selected patients suffering refractory cardiac arrest. Identifying these patients is challenging. This project systematically reviewed the evidence comparing the outcomes of ECPR over conventional-CPR (CCPR), before examining resuscitation-specific parameters to assess which patients might benefit from ECPR. Method:Literature searches of studies comparing ECPR to CCPR and the clinical parameters of survivors of ECPR were performed. The primary outcome examined was survival at hospital discharge or 30 days. A secondary analysis examined the resuscitation parameters that may be associated with survival in patients who receive ECPR (no-flow and low-flow intervals, bystander-CPR, initial shockable cardiac rhythm, and witnessed cardiac arrest). Results:Seventeen of 948 examined studies were included. ECPR demonstrated improved survival (OR 0.40 (0.27-0.60)) and a better neurological outcome (OR 0.10 (0.04-0.27)) over CCPR during literature review and meta-analysis. Characteristics that were associated with improved survival in patients receiving ECPR included an initial shockable rhythm and a shorter low-flow time. Shorter no-flow, the presence of bystander-CPR and witnessed arrests were not characteristics that were associated with improved survival following meta-analysis, although the quality of input data was low. All data were non-randomised, and hence the potential for bias is high. Conclusion:ECPR is a sophisticated treatment option which may improve outcomes in a selected patient population in refractory cardiac arrest. Further comparative research is needed clarify the role of this potential resuscitative therapy.

SUBMITTER: Twohig CJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6820228 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of extracorporeal-CPR versus conventional-CPR for adult patients in cardiac arrest.

Twohig Callum J CJ Singer Ben B Grier Gareth G Finney Simon J SJ

Journal of the Intensive Care Society 20190304 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>The probability of surviving a cardiac arrest remains low. International resuscitation guidelines state that extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) may have a role in selected patients suffering refractory cardiac arrest. Identifying these patients is challenging. This project systematically reviewed the evidence comparing the outcomes of ECPR over conventional-CPR (CCPR), before examining resuscitation-specific parameters to assess which patients might benefit ...[more]

PMID: 31695740

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims at comparing outcomes of rewarming after accidental hypothermic cardiac arrest (HCA) with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) or/and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Material and Methods: Literature searches were limited to references with an abstract in English, French or German. Additionally, we searched reference lists of included papers. Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge. We assessed neurological outcome, differences in relative risks (RR) of surviving, as related to the applied rewarming technique, sex, asphyxia, and witnessed or unwitnessed HCA. We calculated hypothermia outcome prediction probability score after extracorporeal life support (HOPE) in patients in whom we found individual data. P < 0.05 considered significant. Results: Twenty-three case observation studies comprising 464 patients were included in a meta-analysis comparing outcomes of rewarming with CPB or/and ECMO. One-hundred-and-seventy-two patients (37%) survived to hospital discharge, 76 of 245 (31%) after CPB and 96 of 219 (44 %) after ECMO; 87 and 75%, respectively, had good neurological outcomes. Overall chance of surviving was 41% higher (P = 0.005) with ECMO as compared with CPB. A man and a woman had 46% (P = 0.043) and 31% (P = 0.115) higher chance, respectively, of surviving with ECMO as compared with CPB. Avalanche victims had the lowest chance of surviving, followed by drowning and people losing consciousness in cold environments. Assessed by logistic regression, asphyxia, unwitnessed HCA, male sex, high initial body temperature, low pH and high serum potassium (s-K+) levels were associated with reduced chance of surviving. In patients displaying individual data, overall mean predictive surviving probability (HOPE score; n = 134) was 33.9 ± 33.6% with no significant difference between ECMO and CPB-treated patients. We also surveyed 80 case reports with 96 victims of HCA, who underwent resuscitation with CPB or ECMO, without including them in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: The chance of surviving was significantly higher after rewarming with ECMO, as compared to CPB, and in patients with witnessed compared to unwitnessed HCA. Avalanche victims had the lowest probability of surviving. Male sex, high initial body temperature, low pH, and high s-K+ were factors associated with low surviving chances.

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: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.

Dataset Information

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of extracorporeal-CPR versus conventional-CPR for adult patients in cardiac arrest.

Publications

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of extracorporeal-CPR versus conventional-CPR for adult patients in cardiac arrest.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets