BMC Emergency Medicine (Jul 2024)

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

  • Hong Zhong,
  • Zhaohui Yin,
  • Yanze Wang,
  • Pei Shen,
  • Guoli He,
  • Shiming Huang,
  • Jianhong Wang,
  • Shan Huang,
  • Li Ding,
  • Zunwei Luo,
  • Manhong Zhou

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-024-01058-y
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Abstract 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.

Keywords