The impact of selection criteria and study design on reported survival outcomes in extracorporeal oxygenation cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sameer Karve, Dominique Lahood, Arne Diehl, Aidan Burrell, David H Tian, Tim Southwood, Paul Forrest, Mark Dennis
{"title":"The impact of selection criteria and study design on reported survival outcomes in extracorporeal oxygenation cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR): a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Sameer Karve,&nbsp;Dominique Lahood,&nbsp;Arne Diehl,&nbsp;Aidan Burrell,&nbsp;David H Tian,&nbsp;Tim Southwood,&nbsp;Paul Forrest,&nbsp;Mark Dennis","doi":"10.1186/s13049-021-00956-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during cardiac arrest (ECPR) has increased exponentially. However, reported outcomes vary considerably due to differing study designs and selection criteria. This review assessed the impact of pre-defined selection criteria on ECPR survival.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Systematic review applying PRISMA guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews for RCTs and observational studies published from January 2000 to June 2021. Adult patients (> 12 years) receiving ECPR were included. Two investigators reviewed and extracted data on study design, number and type of inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Outcomes included overall and neurologically favourable survival. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>67 studies were included: 14 prospective and 53 retrospective. No RCTs were identified at time of search. The number of inclusion criteria to select ECPR patients (p = 0.292) and study design (p = 0.962) was not associated with higher favourable neurological survival. However, amongst prospective studies, increased number of inclusion criteria was associated with improved outcomes in both OHCA and IHCA cohorts. (β = 0.12, p = 0.026) and arrest to ECMO flow time was predictive of survival. (β = -0.023, p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Prospective studies showed number of selection criteria and, in particular, arrest to ECMO time were associated with significant improved survival. Well-designed prospective studies assessing the relative importance of criteria as well as larger efficacy studies are required to ensure appropriate application of what is a costly intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":501057,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8474891/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-021-00956-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during cardiac arrest (ECPR) has increased exponentially. However, reported outcomes vary considerably due to differing study designs and selection criteria. This review assessed the impact of pre-defined selection criteria on ECPR survival.

Methods: Systematic review applying PRISMA guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews for RCTs and observational studies published from January 2000 to June 2021. Adult patients (> 12 years) receiving ECPR were included. Two investigators reviewed and extracted data on study design, number and type of inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Outcomes included overall and neurologically favourable survival. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed.

Results: 67 studies were included: 14 prospective and 53 retrospective. No RCTs were identified at time of search. The number of inclusion criteria to select ECPR patients (p = 0.292) and study design (p = 0.962) was not associated with higher favourable neurological survival. However, amongst prospective studies, increased number of inclusion criteria was associated with improved outcomes in both OHCA and IHCA cohorts. (β = 0.12, p = 0.026) and arrest to ECMO flow time was predictive of survival. (β = -0.023, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Prospective studies showed number of selection criteria and, in particular, arrest to ECMO time were associated with significant improved survival. Well-designed prospective studies assessing the relative importance of criteria as well as larger efficacy studies are required to ensure appropriate application of what is a costly intervention.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

体外氧合心肺复苏(ECPR)中选择标准和研究设计对报告生存结果的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:体外膜氧合(ECMO)在心脏骤停(ECPR)中的应用呈指数增长。然而,由于不同的研究设计和选择标准,报道的结果差异很大。本综述评估了预先定义的选择标准对ECPR存活的影响。方法:应用PRISMA指南进行系统评价。我们检索了Medline、Embase和循证医学评论,检索了2000年1月至2021年6月发表的随机对照试验和观察性研究。纳入接受ECPR的成人患者(> 12岁)。两位研究者回顾并提取了有关研究设计、数量和纳入标准类型的数据。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)评估研究质量。结果包括总体和神经学有利的生存。进行meta分析和meta回归。结果:纳入67项研究:14项前瞻性研究,53项回顾性研究。在检索时未发现随机对照试验。选择ECPR患者的纳入标准数量(p = 0.292)和研究设计(p = 0.962)与较高的有利神经系统生存率无关。然而,在前瞻性研究中,增加纳入标准的数量与OHCA和IHCA队列的改善结果相关。(β = 0.12, p = 0.026),停搏至ECMO血流时间可预测患者存活。结论:前瞻性研究显示,选择标准的数量,特别是停搏到ECMO的时间与生存率的显著提高相关。需要设计良好的前瞻性研究,评估标准的相对重要性以及更大的疗效研究,以确保适当地应用昂贵的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信