Su Jin Kim1, Hyun Jung Kim2, Hee Young Lee3, Hyeong Sik Ahn2, Sung Woo Lee4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Institute for Evidence-based Medicine, The Korean Branch of Australasian Cochrane Center, Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Center for Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Korea University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: kuedlee@korea.ac.kr.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Alain Combes; Dan Brodie; Yih-Sharng Chen; Eddy Fan; José P S Henriques; Carol Hodgson; Philipp M Lepper; Pascal Leprince; Kunihiko Maekawa; Thomas Muller; Sebastian Nuding; Dagmar M Ouweneel; Antoine Roch; Matthieu Schmidt; Hiroo Takayama; Alain Vuylsteke; Karl Werdan; Laurent Papazian Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Guido Michels; Tobias Wengenmayer; Christian Hagl; Christian Dohmen; Bernd W Böttiger; Johann Bauersachs; Andreas Markewitz; Adrian Bauer; Jan-Thorsten Gräsner; Roman Pfister; Alexander Ghanem; Hans-Jörg Busch; Uwe Kreimeier; Andreas Beckmann; Matthias Fischer; Clemens Kill; Uwe Janssens; Stefan Kluge; Frank Born; Hans Martin Hoffmeister; Michael Preusch; Udo Boeken; Reimer Riessen; Holger Thiele Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: G Michels; T Wengenmayer; C Hagl; C Dohmen; B W Böttiger; J Bauersachs; A Markewitz; A Bauer; J-T Gräsner; R Pfister; A Ghanem; H-J Busch; U Kreimeier; A Beckmann; M Fischer; C Kill; U Janssens; S Kluge; F Born; H M Hoffmeister; M Preusch; U Boeken; R Riessen; H Thiele Journal: Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 0.840
Authors: G Michels; T Wengenmayer; C Hagl; C Dohmen; B W Böttiger; J Bauersachs; A Markewitz; A Bauer; J-T Gräsner; R Pfister; A Ghanem; H-J Busch; U Kreimeier; A Beckmann; M Fischer; C Kill; U Janssens; S Kluge; F Born; H M Hoffmeister; M Preusch; U Boeken; R Riessen; H Thiele Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Joshua C Reynolds; Brian E Grunau; Jon C Rittenberger; Kelly N Sawyer; Michael C Kurz; Clifton W Callaway Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 29.690