Extracorporeal Versus Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Propensity Score Matching Cohort Study

What's the optimal temperature control strategy in patients receiving ECPR after cardiac arrest? A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal temperature control strategy in extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) patients is unknown, and several trials have reported conflicting results regarding its effectiveness. We aimed to conduct a systemic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the efficacy of temperature control in ECPR patients.

METHODS

Database searching of studies reporting data on temperature control strategy during ECPR in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library was performed. Primary outcomes were overall survival and neurological outcome. Pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA were performed on studies comparing outcomes among groups of moderate hypothermia (32-34 °C), mild hypothermia (34.1-36 °C) and normothermia (36.1-37.5 °C).

RESULTS

Nineteen retrospective studies were included (5622 patients). Statistically significant differences in good neurological outcome were observed in the direct comparison of moderate hypothermia and mild hypothermia (OR, 1.73; 95 % CI: 1.07-2.81) as well as moderate hypothermia and normothermia (OR, 2.14; 95 % CI: 1.24-3.67), but no significant differences were found in the NMA result. There was no difference in either survival outcome or the incidence of bleeding complications among any groups according to direct or indirect analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct evidence suggests that moderate hypothermia might be associated with improved neurological outcomes in ECPR patients. However, no significant differences in survival outcomes were observed in either the direct or NMA results. Given the lower level of the evidence, interpretation should be made with caution.

Impact of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation on neurological prognosis and survival in adult patients after cardiac arrest: An individual pooled patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We aimed to estimate the effect of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) on neurological outcome and mortality, when compared to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR), using an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed up to the 20th of October 2022 in the PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases. For observational studies with unmatched populations, a propensity score including age, location of arrest and initial rhythm was used to match ECPR and CCPR patients in a 1:1 ratio. The primary and secondary outcomes were unfavorable neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category of 3-5) and mortality, respectively, which were both collected at different time-points.

RESULTS

Data from 17 studies, including 2064 matched cardiac arrest (CA) patients (1031 ECPR and 1033 CCPR cases) were included. In comparison to CCPR, ECPR was associated with a decreased odds of unfavorable neurological outcome (847, 82.2% vs. 897, 86.8% - OR 0.68 [95%CI 0.53-0.87]; p = 0.002) and death (803, 77.9% vs. 860, 83.3% - OR 0.68 [95%CI 0.54-0.86]; p = 0.001). These results were consistent across most of the prespecified subgroups. Moreover, the odds of both unfavorable neurological outcome and mortality were significantly influenced by initial rhythm, cause of arrest and combinations of lactate levels on admission and duration of resuscitation.

CONCLUSIONS

This IPDMA showed that ECPR was associated with significantly lower rates of unfavorable neurological outcome and mortality in refractory CA. The overall effect could be influenced by CA characteristics and the severity of the initial injury.

Comparison of prognosis between extracorporeal CPR and conventional CPR for patients in cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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%).

CONCLUSIONS

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.