Dataset Information

Survival of pediatric patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In-hospital cardiac arrest is a major public health issue. It is a serious condition; most probably end up with death within a few minutes even with corrective measures. However, cardiopulmonary resuscitation is expected to increase the probability of survival and prevent neurological disabilities in patients with cardiac arrest. Having a pooled prevalence of survival to hospital discharge after cardiopulmonary resuscitation is vital to develop strategies targeted to increase probability of survival among patients with cardiac arrest. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to assess the pooled prevalence of survival to hospital discharge among pediatric patients who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest.

Methods

PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane review databases were searched. To have current (five-year) evidence, only studies published in 2016 to 2020 were included. The weighted inverse variance random-effects model at 95%CI was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of survival. Heterogeneity assessment, test of publication bias, and subgroup analyses were also employed accordingly.

Results

Twenty-five articles with a total sample size of 28,479 children were included in the final analysis. The pooled prevalence of survival to hospital discharge was found to be 46% (95% CI = 43.0-50.0%; I² = 96.7%; p < 0.001). Based on subgroup analysis by "continent" and "income level", lowest prevalence of pooled survival was observed in Asia (six studies; pooled survival =36.0% with 95% CI = 19.01-52.15%; I² = 97.4%; p < 0.001) and in low and middle income countries (six studies, pooled survival = 34.0% with 95% CI = 17.0-51.0%, I2 = 97.67%, p < 0.001) respectively.

Conclusion

Although there was an extremely high heterogeneity among reported results (I² = 96.7%), in this meta-analysis more than half of pediatric patients (54%) who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest did not survived to hospital discharge. Therefore, developing further strategies and encouraging researches might be crucial.

SUBMITTER: Bimerew M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8164331 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVeno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been used as extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) to support further resuscitation efforts in patients with cardiac arrest, yet its clinical effectiveness remains uncertain.ObjectivesThis study reviews the role of ECPR in contemporary resuscitation care compared to no ECPR and/or standard care, e.g. conventional CPR, and quantitatively summarize the rates of long-term neurologically intact survival after adult in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).MethodsWe searched the following databases on January 31 st, 2020: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. We followed PRISMA guidelines and used PICO format to summarize the research questions. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) for each outcome of interest were calculated. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to GRADE guidelines.ResultsSix cohort studies were included, totaling 1750 patients. Of these, 530 (30.3%) received the intervention, and 91 (17.2%) survived with long-term neurologically intact survival. ECPR compared to no ECPR is likely associated with improved long-term neurologically intact survival after cardiac arrest in any setting (risk ratio [RR] 3.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.06-4.69; p < 0.00001) (GRADE: Very low quality). Similar results were found for long-term neurologically intact survival after IHCA (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.74-5.94; p < 0.0002) (GRADE: Very low quality) and OHCA (RR 3.11, 95% CI 1.50-6.47; p < 0.002) (GRADE: Very low quality). Long-term time frames for neurologically intact survival (three months to two years) were combined into a single category, defined a priori as a Glasgow-Pittsburgh cerebral performance category (CPC) of 1 or 2.ConclusionsVA-ECMO used as ECPR is likely associated with improved long-term neurologically intact survival after cardiac arrest. Future evidence from randomized trials is very likely to have an important impact on the estimated effect of this intervention and will further define optimal clinical practice. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020171945.

Project description:BackgroundDispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DA-CPR) increases neurologically intact survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) according to several studies. This systematic review summarizes neurologically intact survival outcomes of DA-CPR in comparison with bystander-initiated CPR and no bystander CPR in OHCA.MethodsThe systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. All studies including adult and/or pediatric OHCAs that compared DA-CPR with bystander-initiated CPR or no bystander CPR were included. Primary outcome was neurologically intact survival at discharge, one-month or longer. Studies were searched for in PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.ResultsThe search string generated 4742 citations of which 33 studies were eligible for inclusion. Due to overlapping study populations, the review included 14 studies. All studies were observational. The study populations were heterogeneous and included adult, pediatric and mixed populations. Some studies reported only witnessed cardiac arrests, arrests of cardiac ethiology, and/or shockable rhythm. The individual studies scored between six and nine on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale of risk of bias. The median neurologically intact survival at hospital discharge with DA-CPR was 7.0% (interquartile range (IQR): 5.1-10.8%), with bystander-initiated CPR 7.5% (IQR: 6.6-10.2%), and with no bystander CPR 4.4% (IQR: 2.0-9.0%) (four studies). At one-month neurologically intact survival with DA-CPR was 3.1% (IQR: 1.6-3.4%), with bystander-initiated CPR 5.7% (IQR: 5.0-6.0%), and with no bystander CPR 2.5% (IQR: 2.1-2.6%) (three studies).ConclusionBoth DA-CPR and bystander-initiated CPR increase neurologically intact survival compared with no bystander CPR. However, DA-CPR demonstrates inferior outcomes compared with bystander-initiated CPR. Early CPR is crucial, thus in cases where bystanders have not initiated CPR, DA-CPR provides an opportunity to improve neurologically intact survival following OHCA. Variability in OHCA outcomes across studies and multiple confounding factors were identified.

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:ImportanceOutcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) remain poor. Outcomes associated with community interventions that address bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) remain unclear and need further study.ObjectiveTo examine community interventions and their association with bystander CPR and survival after OHCA.Data sourcesLiterature search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from database inception to December 31, 2018, was conducted. Key search terms included cardiopulmonary resuscitation, layperson, basic life support, education, cardiac arrest, and survival.Study selectionCommunity intervention studies that reported on comparisons with control and differences in survival following OHCA were included. Studies that focused only on in-hospital interventions, patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest, only dispatcher-assisted CPR, or provision of automated external defibrillators were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisPooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were estimated using a random-effects model. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day survival or survival to hospital discharge and bystander CPR rate.ResultsA total of 4480 articles were identified; of these, 15 studies were included for analysis. There were broadly 2 types of interventions: community intervention alone (5 studies) and community intervention combined with changes in health services (10 studies). Four studies involved notification systems that alerted trained lay bystanders to the location of the OHCA in addition to CPR skills training. Meta-analysis of 9 studies including 21?266 patients with OHCA found that community interventions were associated with increased survival to discharge or 30-day survival (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.14-1.57; I2?=?33%) and greater bystander CPR rate (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06-1.54; I2?=?82%). Compared with community intervention alone, community plus health service intervention was associated with a greater bystander CPR rate compared with community alone (community plus intervention: OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.26-2.40 vs community alone: OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.31) (P?=?.01). Survival rate, however, was not significantly different between intervention types: community plus health service intervention OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.09-2.68 vs community only OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.05-1.50 (P?=?.21).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, while the evidence base is limited, community-based interventions with a focus on improving bystander CPR appeared to be associated with improved survival following OHCA. Further evaluations in diverse settings are needed to enable widespread implementation of such interventions.

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.

Project description:BackgroundIn selected patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation represents a promising approach when conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation fails to achieve return of spontaneous circulation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to November 28, 2021, for randomized trials and observational studies reporting propensity score-matched data and comparing adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation with those treated with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The primary outcome was survival with favorable neurological outcome at the longest follow-up available. Secondary outcomes were survival at the longest follow-up available and survival at hospital discharge/30 days.ResultsWe included six studies, two randomized and four propensity score-matched studies. Patients treated with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation had higher rates of survival with favorable neurological outcome (81/584 [14%] vs. 46/593 [7.8%]; OR = 2.11; 95% CI, 1.41-3.15; p < 0.001, number needed to treat 16) and of survival (131/584 [22%] vs. 102/593 [17%]; OR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.05-1.87; p = 0.02) at the longest follow-up available compared with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Survival at hospital discharge/30 days was similar between the two groups (142/584 [24%] vs. 122/593 [21%]; OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 0.95-1.66; p = 0.10).ConclusionsEvidence from randomized trials and propensity score-matched studies suggests increased survival and favorable neurological outcome in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest treated with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Large, multicentre randomized studies are still ongoing to confirm these findings.