Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis appraising efficacy and safety of adrenaline for adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is a beneficial effect of adrenaline during adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) from cardiac arrest but there is also uncertainty about its safety and effectiveness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of adrenaline versus non-adrenaline CPR.

Methods

PubMed, ScienceDirect, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and Google Scholar databases were searched from their inception up to 1st July 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and risk of bias, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference of groups were calculated using fixed or random-effect models.

Results

Nineteen trials were identified. The use of adrenaline during CPR was associated with a significantly higher percentage of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) compared to non-adrenaline treatment (20.9% vs. 5.9%; RR = 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-2.55; p < 0.001). The use of adrenaline in CPR was associated with ROSC at 19.4% and for non-adrenaline treatment - 4.3% (RR = 3.23; 95% CI 1.89-5.53; p < 0.001). Survival to discharge (or 30-day survival) when using adrenaline was 6.8% compared to non-adrenaline treatment (5.5%; RR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.76-1.30; p = 0.97). However, the use of adrenaline was associated with a worse neurological outcome (1.6% vs. 2.2%; RR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.42-0.78; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This review suggests that resuscitation with adrenaline is associated with the ROSC and survival to hospital discharge, but no higher effectiveness was observed at discharge with favorable neurological outcome. The analysis showed higher effectiveness of ROSC and survival to hospital discharge in non-shockable rhythms. But more multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed in the future.

SUBMITTER: Ludwin K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8078950 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveExperimental studies of head-up positioning (HUP) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) have had some degree of conflicting published results. The current study aim was to analyze and reconcile those discrepancies in order to better clarify the effects of HUP CPR compared to conventional supine (SUP) CPR.MethodsThree databases (PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) were searched comprehensively (from each respective database's inception to May 2021) for articles addressing HUP CPR. The primary outcome to be observed was cerebral perfusion pressure (CerPP), and secondary outcomes were mean intracranial pressure (ICP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), coronary perfusion pressure (CoPP) and frequencies of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC).ResultsSeven key studies involving 131 animals were included for analysis. Compared to SUP CPR, CerPP (MD 10.37; 95% CI 7.11-13.64; p < 0.01; I2 = 58%) and CoPP (MD 7.56; 95% CI 1.84-13.27, p = 0.01; I2 = 75%) increased significantly with HUP CPR, while ICP (MD - 13.66; 95% CI - 18.6 to -8.71; p < 0.01; I2 = 96%) decreased significantly. Combining all study methodologies, there were no significant differences detected in MAP (MD - 1.63; 95% CI - 10.77-7.52; p = 0.73; I2 = 93%) or frequency of ROSC (RR 0.9; 95% CI 0.31-2.60; p = 0.84; I2 = 65%). However, in contrast to worse outcomes in studies using immediate elevation of the head in a reverse Trendelenburg position, study outcomes were significantly improved when HUP (head and chest only) was introduced in a steady, graduated manner following a brief period of basic CPR augmented by active compression-decompression (ACD) and impedance threshold (ITD) devices.ConclusionIn experimental models, gradually elevating the head and chest following a brief interval of circulatory priming with ACD and ITD devices can enhance CoPP, lower ICP and improve CerPP significantly while maintaining MAP. This effect is immediate, remains sustained and is associated with improved outcomes.

Project description:Background Head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation (HU-CPR) is an experimental treatment for sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), where cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is performed in a ramped position. We evaluated whether HU-CPR improved survival and surrogate outcomes as compared to standard CPR (S-CPR). Methods Studies reporting on HU-CPR in SCA were searched for in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library from inception to May 1st 2021. Outcomes included neurologically-intact survival, 24-hour-survival, intracranial pressure (ICP), cerebral perfusion pressure (CerPP) and brain blood flow (BBF). Risk of bias was assessed using the GRADE assessment tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Fixed- and random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled effects of HU-CPR at 30 degrees. Results Thirteen articles met the criteria for inclusion (11 animal-only studies, one before-and-after human-only study, one study that utilized human- and animal-cadavers). Among animal studies, the most common implementation of HU-CPR was a 30-degree upward tilt of the head and thorax (n=7), while four studies investigated controlled sequential elevation (CSE). Two animal studies reported improved cerebral performance category (CPC) scores at 24-hour. The pooled effect on 24-hour survival was not statistically significant (P=0.37). The lone human study reported doubled return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (17.9% versus 34.2%, P<0.0001). The pooled effect on ROSC in three porcine studies was OR =3.63 (95% CI: 0.72–18.39). Pooled effects for surrogate physiological outcomes of intracranial cranial pressure (MD −14.08, 95% CI: −23.21 to −4.95, P=0.003), CerPP (MD 14.39, 95% CI: 3.07–25.72, P=0.01) and BBF (MD 0.14, 95% CI: 0.02–0.27, P=0.03), showed statistically significant benefit. Discussion Overall, HU-CPR improved neurologically-intact survival at 24-hour, ROSC and physiological surrogate outcomes in animal models. Despite promising preclinical data, and one human observational study, clinical equipoise remains surrounding the role of HU-CPR in SCA, necessitating clarification with future randomized human trials.