Comparing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A meta-analysis.
The objective was to determine whether extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), when compared with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR), improves outcomes in adult patients, and to determine appropriate conditions that can predict good survival outcome in ECPR patients through a meta-analysis.
We searched the relevant literature of comparative studies between ECPR and CCPR in adults, from the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. The baseline information and outcome data (survival, good neurologic outcome at discharge, at 3-6 months, and at 1 year after arrest) were extracted. Beneficial effect of ECPR on outcome was analyzed according to time interval, location of arrest (out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA)), and pre-defined population inclusion criteria (witnessed arrest, initial shockable rhythm, cardiac etiology of arrest and CPR duration) by using Review Manager 5.3. Cochran's Q test and I(2) were calculated.
10 of 1583 publications were included. Although survival to discharge did not show clear superiority in OHCA, ECPR showed statistically improved survival and good neurologic outcome as compared to CCPR, especially at 3-6 months after arrest. In the subgroup of patients with pre-defined inclusion criteria, the pooled meta-analysis found similar results in studies with pre-defined criteria.
Survival and good neurologic outcome tended to be superior in the ECPR group at 3-6 months after arrest. The effect of ECPR on survival to discharge in OHCA was not clearly shown. As ECPR showed better outcomes than CCPR in studies with pre-defined criteria, strict indications criteria should be considered when implementation of ECPR.
Kim SJ
，Kim HJ
，Lee HY
，Ahn HS
，Lee SW
... -
《-》
Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with cardiac arrest: a comparative meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Although outcomes of patients after cardiac arrest remain poor, studies have suggested that extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) might improve survival and neurological outcomes. We aimed to investigate any potential benefits of using ECPR over conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA).
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from Jan 1, 2000, to April 1, 2023, for randomised controlled trials and propensity-score matched studies. We included studies comparing ECPR with CCPR in adults (aged ≥18 years) with OHCA and IHCA. We extracted data from published reports using a prespecified data extraction form. We did random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses and rated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Developments, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. We rated the risk of bias of randomised controlled trials using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool, and that of observational studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included complications during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, short-term (from hospital discharge to 30 days after cardiac arrest) and long-term (≥90 days after cardiac arrest) survival with favourable neurological outcomes (defined as cerebral performance category scores 1 or 2), and survival at 30 days, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after cardiac arrest. We also did trial sequential analyses to evaluate the required information sizes in the meta-analyses to detect clinically relevant reductions in mortality.
We included 11 studies (4595 patients receiving ECPR and 4597 patients receiving CCPR) in the meta-analysis. ECPR was associated with a significant reduction in overall in-hospital mortality (OR 0·67, 95% CI 0·51-0·87; p=0·0034; high certainty), without evidence of publication bias (pegger=0·19); the trial sequential analysis was concordant with the meta-analysis. When considering IHCA only, in-hospital mortality was lower in patients receiving ECPR than in those receiving CCPR (0·42, 0·25-0·70; p=0·0009), whereas when considering OHCA only, no differences were found (0·76, 0·54-1·07; p=0·12). Centre volume (ie, the number of ECPR runs done per year in each centre) was associated with reductions in odds of mortality (regression coefficient per doubling of centre volume -0·17, 95% CI -0·32 to -0·017; p=0·030). ECPR was also associated with an increased rate of short-term (OR 1·65, 95% CI 1·02-2·68; p=0·042; moderate certainty) and long-term (2·04, 1·41-2·94; p=0·0001; high certainty) survival with favourable neurological outcomes. Additionally, patients receiving ECPR had increased survival at 30-day (OR 1·45, 95% CI 1·08-1·96; p=0·015), 3-month (3·98, 1·12-14·16; p=0·033), 6-month (1·87, 1·36-2·57; p=0·0001), and 1-year (1·72, 1·52-1·95; p<0·0001) follow-ups.
Compared with CCPR, ECPR reduced in-hospital mortality and improved long-term neurological outcomes and post-arrest survival, particularly in patients with IHCA. These findings suggest that ECPR could be considered for eligible patients with IHCA, although further research into patients with OHCA is warranted.
None.
Low CJW
，Ramanathan K
，Ling RR
，Ho MJC
，Chen Y
，Lorusso R
，MacLaren G
，Shekar K
，Brodie D
... -
《-》
Comparison of prognosis between extracorporeal CPR and conventional CPR for patients in cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Compared to the conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR), potential benefits of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for patients with cardiac arrest (CA) are still controversial. We aimed to determine whether ECPR can improve the prognosis of CA patients compared with CCPR.
We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from database's inception to July 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that compared ECPR with CCPR in adults (aged ≥ 16 years) with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). This meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Two researchers independently reviewed the relevance of the study, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the included literature. The primary outcome was short-term (from hospital discharge to one month after cardiac arrest) and long-term (≥ 90 days after cardiac arrest) survival with favorable neurological status (defined as cerebral performance category scores 1 or 2). Secondary outcomes included survival at 1 months, 3-6 months, and 1 year after cardiac arrest.
The meta-analysis included 3 RCTs and 14 cohort studies involving 167,728 patients. We found that ECPR can significantly improve good neurological prognosis (RR 1.82, 95%CI 1.42-2.34, I2 = 41%) and survival rate (RR 1.51, 95%CI 1.20-1.89, I2 = 62%). In addition, the results showed that ECPR had different effects on favorable neurological status in patients with OHCA (short-term: RR 1.50, 95%CI 0.98- 2.29, I2 = 55%; long-term: RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.06-3.59, I2 = 11%). However, ECPR had significantly better effects on neurological status than CCPR in patients with IHCA (short-term: RR 2.18, 95%CI 1.24- 3.81, I2 = 9%; long-term: RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.19-3.94, I2 = 0%).
This meta-analysis indicated that ECPR had significantly better effects on good neurological prognosis and survival rate than CCPR, especially in patients with IHCA. However, more high-quality studies are needed to explore the role of ECPR in patients with OHCA.
Zhong H
，Yin Z
，Wang Y
，Shen P
，He G
，Huang S
，Wang J
，Huang S
，Ding L
，Luo Z
，Zhou M
... -
《BMC EMERGENCY MEDICINE》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
