Out-of-hospital thrombolysis in cardiac arrest after unsuccessful resuscitation

Thrombolysis as a Therapeutic Modality in Cardiac Arrest

Introduction

In recent years, thrombolysis has emerged as a potentially promising treatment for cardiac arrest. Patients with cardiac arrests from myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolism, as well as out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, were reported to have improvement in both survival and neurologic outcome after being treated with thrombolysis. This paper aims to review the available literature on the use of thrombolysis in cardiac arrest.

Method

Study of papers from PubMed literature search for all articles with terms related to thrombolysis and cardiac arrest in title or abstract.

Results

Thrombolytics are thought to act by lysing both macroscopic clots and microthrombi, particularly in the cerebral microcirculation, thus alleviating or reversing post-arrest cerebral no-reflow. Their use in cardiac arrest has been restrained by concerns over their safety after cardiopulmonary resuscitation, in particular bleeding-related complications, although these concerns seem to have been misplaced.

Conclusions

Thrombolysis for cardiac arrest is likely to be most efficacious in a pre-hospital environment, and future research should be directed to this setting.

Safety of thrombolysis during cardiopulmonary resuscitation

The prognosis is generally poor for patients who experience a cardiac arrest. The most common causes of sudden cardiac arrest are massive pulmonary embolism (PE) and acute myocardial infarction (MI). While thrombolysis is a first-line treatment option in massive PE and acute MI, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been regarded as a relative contraindication for thrombolysis because of the anticipated bleeding risk caused by traumatic cardiocompressions. However, an increasing number of case reports and clinical studies on thrombolysis during and after CPR highlight an increased frequency of the return of spontaneous circulation and a better neurological outcome of surviving patients. These effects are mainly due to the thrombolysis of macroscopic blood clots and the amelioration of microcirculatory reperfusion. This article reviews case reports and clinical studies of thrombolysis during and shortly after CPR in order to estimate the risk of severe bleeding events caused by CPR in association with thrombolysis compared with CPR without thrombolysis. Although thrombolysis per se can cause severe and potentially fatal haemorrhage, there is no evidence that severe bleeding events occur more often when thrombolysis is combined with cardiocompressions. In addition, by far the majority of bleeding complications can be treated effectively. Thus, in many cases, the possible benefit of thrombolysis during CPR seems to outweigh the potential risks. However, there may be a publication bias in some case reports and studies towards reporting successful rather than unsuccessful CPRs. In addition, not enough controlled clinical trials have yet been conducted. Therefore, data from large randomised, multicentre studies are needed to definitely answer the question of the relationship between safety and efficacy of this promising treatment option. We conclude that the currently available data do not indicate that thrombolysis contributes to a significant increase in bleeding complications when administered during CPR.

Tissue plasminogen activator in cardiac arrest with pulseless electrical activity

BACKGROUND

Coronary thrombosis and pulmonary thromboembolism are common causes of cardiac arrest. We assessed whether the administration of tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation would benefit patients with cardiac arrest and pulseless electrical activity of unknown or presumed cardiovascular cause.

METHODS

Patients who were older than 16 years of age and who had more than one minute of pulseless electrical activity that was unresponsive to initial therapy outside the hospital or in the emergency department were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of t-PA or placebo intravenously over a 15-minute period in a double-blind fashion. Standard resuscitation was then continued for at least 15 minutes. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge.

RESULTS

During the study period, 1583 patients with cardiac arrest were treated and 233 patients were enrolled (117 in the t-PA group and 116 in the placebo group). The characteristics of the patients in the two groups were similar. One patient in the t-PA group survived to hospital discharge, as compared with none in the placebo group (absolute difference between groups, 0.9; 95 percent confidence interval, -2.6 to 4.8; P=0.99). The proportion of patients with return of spontaneous circulation was 21.4 percent in the t-PA group and 23.3 percent in the placebo group (absolute difference between groups, -1.9; 95 percent confidence interval, -12.6 to 8.8; P=0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of a beneficial effect of fibrinolysis in patients with cardiac arrest and pulseless electrical activity of unknown or presumed cardiovascular cause. Our study had limited statistical power, and it remains unknown whether there is a small treatment effect or whether selected subgroups may benefit.