Dataset Information

A systematic review of current ECPR protocols. A step towards standardisation.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) can treat cardiac arrest refractory to conventional therapies. Our goal was to identify the best protocol for survival with good neurological outcome through the evaluation of current inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, cannulation strategies and additional therapeutic measures.

Methods

A systematic literature search was used to identify eligible publications from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane for articles published from 29 June 2009 until 29 June 2019.

Results

The selection process led to a total of 24 eligible articles, considering 1723 patients in total. A good neurological outcome at hospital discharge was found in 21.3% of all patients. The most consistent criterion for inclusion was refractory cardiac arrest (RCA), used in 21/25 (84%) of the protocols. The preferred cannulation method was the percutaneous Seldinger technique (44%).

Conclusion

ECPR is a feasible option for cardiac arrest and should already be considered in an early stage of CPR. One of the key findings is that time-to-ECPR seems to be correlated with good neurological survival. An important contributing factor is the definition of RCA. Protocols defining RCA as >10 min had a mean good neurological survival of 26.7%. Protocols with a higher cut-off, between 15 and 30 min, had a mean good neurological survival of 14.5%. Another factor contributing to the time-to-ECPR is the preferred access technique. A percutaneous Seldinger technique combined with ultrasonography and fluoroscopic guidance leads to a reduced cannulation time and complication rate. Conclusive research around prehospital cannulation still needs to be conducted.

SUBMITTER: Koen 'J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8244348 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Therapeutic hypothermia has been recommended for eligible patients after cardiac arrest (CA) in order to improve outcomes. Up to now, several comparative observational studies have evaluated the combined use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) and therapeutic hypothermia in adult patients with CA. However, the effects of therapeutic hypothermia in adult CA patients receiving ECPR are inconsistent. METHODS:Relevant studies in English databases (PubMed, ISI web of science, OVID, and Embase) were systematically searched up to September 2019. Odds ratios (ORs) from eligible studies were extracted and pooled to summarize the associations of therapeutic hypothermia with favorable neurological outcomes and survival in adult CA patients receiving ECPR. RESULTS:13 articles were included in the present meta-analysis study. There were nine studies with a total of 806 cases reporting the association of therapeutic hypothermia with neurological outcomes in CA patients receiving ECPR. Pooling analysis suggested that therapeutic hypothermia was significantly associated with favorable neurological outcomes in overall (N?=?9, OR?=?3.507, 95%CI?=?2.194-5.607, P?<?0.001, fixed-effects model) and in all subgroups according to control type, regions, sample size, CA location, ORs obtained methods, follow-up period, and modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale (mNOS) scores. There were nine studies with a total of 806 cases assessing the association of therapeutic hypothermia with survival in CA patients receiving ECPR. After pooling the ORs, therapeutic hypothermia was found to be significantly associated with survival in overall (N?=?9, OR?=?2.540, 95%CI?=?1.245-5.180, P?=?0.010, random-effects model) and in some subgroups. Publication bias was found when evaluating the association of therapeutic hypothermia with neurological outcomes in CA patients receiving ECPR. Additional trim-and-fill analysis estimated four "missing" studies, which adjusted the effect size to 2.800 (95%CI?=?1.842-4.526, P?<?0.001, fixed-effects model) for neurological outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Therapeutic hypothermia may be associated with favorable neurological outcomes and survival in adult CA patients undergoing ECPR. However, the result should be treated carefully because it is a synthesis of low-level evidence and other limitations exist in present study. It is necessary to perform randomized controlled trials to validate our result before considering the result in clinical practices.

Project description:BackgroundThe growing tendency among opioid addicts to misuse multiple other drugs should lead clinicians and researchers to search for new pharmacological strategies in order to prevent life-threatening complications and minimize withdrawal symptoms during polydrug detoxification.MethodsA non-randomised, open-label in-patient detoxification study was used to compare the short-time efficacy of a standardised regimen comprising 6 days Buprenorphine and 10 days Valproate (BPN/VPA) (n = 12) to a control group (n = 50) who took a 10-day traditional Clonidine/Carbamazepine (CLN/CBZ) regimen. Sixty-two dependent subjects admitted to a detoxification unit were included, all dependent on at least opioids and benzodiazepines. Other dependencies were not excluded.ResultsIn the BPN/VPA group, 8 out of 12 patients (67%) completed treatment compared with 25 of 50 patients (50%) in the CLN/CBZ group; this difference between the groups was non-significant (p = 0.15). Withdrawal symptoms were reduced in both groups, but only the BPN/VPA group achieved a reduction in withdrawal symptoms from day one. The difference between the two groups was significantly in favour of the BPN/VPA group for days 2 (p < 0.001), 3 (p < 0.05), 4 (p < 0.001), 5 (p < 0.01), 7 (p < 0.01) and 8 (p < 0.05). The BPN/VPA combination did not affect blood pressure, pulse or liver function, and the total burden of side-effects was experienced as modest. There appeared to be no pharmacological interactions of clinical concern, based on measurement of Buprenorphine and Valproate serum levels. Both the patients and the staff were satisfied with the standardised treatment combination.ConclusionOverall, the combination of Buprenorphine and Valproate seems to be a safe and promising method for treating multiple drug withdrawal symptoms. The results of this study suggest that the BPN/VPA combination is potentially a better detoxification treatment for polydrug withdrawal than the traditional treatment with Clonidine and Carbamazepine. However, a randomised, double-blind study with a larger sample size to confirm our results is recommended.

Project description:PurposeTo screen manuscripts that discuss rehabilitation protocols for patients who underwent superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) to elucidate whether a standard rehabilitation algorithm exists for SCR.MethodsA systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (i.e., PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase were searched using pertinent Boolean operation terms "superior capsular reconstruction" and "rotator cuff repair rehabilitation," and articles that included rehabilitation protocols following superior capsular reconstruction surgery were reviewed. Two independent reviewers performed the search and quality assessment.ResultsA total of 549 articles were yielded after our database search. Fourteen studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Study designs included 9 editorials, 3 case series, and 2 case reports. Each study included in this review used a unique rehabilitation algorithm that posed significant variability between the protocols. Four phases were identified to summarize each protocol and were used as a basis of discussion-sling versus brace time (3-6 weeks for comfort/removal vs complete immobilization), passive range of motion (immediately after surgery to initiation at 6 weeks), active range of motion (4-8 weeks), and strengthening/return to full activity (12-52 weeks). Initiation of rehabilitation, length of time spent in each phase, types of exercises, and overarching goals for return to function were significantly variable and were decided upon by the surgeon based on current massive rotator cuff repair protocols. Presently, there is no standard rehabilitation protocol for SCR.ConclusionsSCR is a relatively new procedure that is gaining rapid popularity with promising outcomes. Based on our review, there is no standard rehabilitation protocol in place; thus, it is not possible to recommend an evidence-based rehabilitation protocol following SCR at this time.Level of evidenceLevel V, systematic review of Level IV and V studies.