Dawid Woszczyk, Wiktoria Zasada, Hanna Cholerzyńska, Tomasz Kłosiewicz, Mateusz Puślecki
{"title":"体外心肺复苏后神经预后预测:系统回顾。","authors":"Dawid Woszczyk, Wiktoria Zasada, Hanna Cholerzyńska, Tomasz Kłosiewicz, Mateusz Puślecki","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02818-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To consolidate current evidence on predictors of neurological outcome following extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) in patients with cardiac arrest.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of the literature across databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Studies assessing neurological outcomes post-eCPR were identified, with a total of 10 studies eligible for individual assessment of which 8 comprising 4353 patients allowed to perform collective statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Favorable neurological outcomes were associated with age < 65 years (OR = 6.17), shockable rhythm at extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation (OR = 6.67) or hospital arrival (OR = 3.68), and initial pH ≥ 7.0 (OR = 2.01). Other factors involved the presence of any life sign (gasping, positive pupillary light reaction, or increased level of consciousness before or throughout cardiopulmonary resuscitation) (OR = 9.63; Se 0.89, Sp 0.46, PPV 0.22, NPV 0.96), transient return of spontaneous circulation, non-hypoxic mechanism of occurred hepatitis, public location, and hypothermic etiology of cardiac arrest; however, each of those findings was supported by only one study. Unfavorable outcomes were linked to hypoxic brain injury on computed tomography (OR = 12.40; Se 0.366, Sp 0.955, PPV 0.767, NPV 0.787) and elevated serum creatinine (OR = 2.22). The TiPS65 scale showed high predictive accuracy in two studies when the cut-off point was set at 4 points (88.4% and 88.6%; Se 0.172, Sp 0.971, PPV 0.423, and NPV 0.906, and Se 0.193, Sp 0.985, PPV 0.646, and NPV 0.896, respectively). Some predictors, like call-to-hospital time and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, had mixed results across studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Neurological prognostication in eCPR patients is a complex problem requiring the consideration of multiple variables regarding patient's and cardiac arrest characteristics. Future research should focus on the determination of outcome-affecting factors and assessment of their applicability in clinical settings. New knowledge on this ground will help to create recommendations for eCPR initiation and termination, consequently contributing to treatment results improvement.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024530305.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"67"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11929275/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Neurological outcome predictors after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Dawid Woszczyk, Wiktoria Zasada, Hanna Cholerzyńska, Tomasz Kłosiewicz, Mateusz Puślecki\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-025-02818-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To consolidate current evidence on predictors of neurological outcome following extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) in patients with cardiac arrest.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of the literature across databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Studies assessing neurological outcomes post-eCPR were identified, with a total of 10 studies eligible for individual assessment of which 8 comprising 4353 patients allowed to perform collective statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Favorable neurological outcomes were associated with age < 65 years (OR = 6.17), shockable rhythm at extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation (OR = 6.67) or hospital arrival (OR = 3.68), and initial pH ≥ 7.0 (OR = 2.01). Other factors involved the presence of any life sign (gasping, positive pupillary light reaction, or increased level of consciousness before or throughout cardiopulmonary resuscitation) (OR = 9.63; Se 0.89, Sp 0.46, PPV 0.22, NPV 0.96), transient return of spontaneous circulation, non-hypoxic mechanism of occurred hepatitis, public location, and hypothermic etiology of cardiac arrest; however, each of those findings was supported by only one study. Unfavorable outcomes were linked to hypoxic brain injury on computed tomography (OR = 12.40; Se 0.366, Sp 0.955, PPV 0.767, NPV 0.787) and elevated serum creatinine (OR = 2.22). The TiPS65 scale showed high predictive accuracy in two studies when the cut-off point was set at 4 points (88.4% and 88.6%; Se 0.172, Sp 0.971, PPV 0.423, and NPV 0.906, and Se 0.193, Sp 0.985, PPV 0.646, and NPV 0.896, respectively). Some predictors, like call-to-hospital time and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, had mixed results across studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Neurological prognostication in eCPR patients is a complex problem requiring the consideration of multiple variables regarding patient's and cardiac arrest characteristics. Future research should focus on the determination of outcome-affecting factors and assessment of their applicability in clinical settings. New knowledge on this ground will help to create recommendations for eCPR initiation and termination, consequently contributing to treatment results improvement.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42024530305.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"67\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11929275/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02818-y\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02818-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:巩固目前关于心脏骤停患者体外心肺复苏(eCPR)后神经预后预测因素的证据。方法:我们对PubMed、MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、Cochrane图书馆和Web of Science等数据库的文献进行了系统综述。评估ecpr后神经系统预后的研究被确定,共有10项研究符合单独评估的条件,其中8项(4353例患者)允许进行集体统计分析。结论:eCPR患者的神经预后是一个复杂的问题,需要考虑患者和心脏骤停特征等多个变量。未来的研究应侧重于确定影响结果的因素并评估其在临床环境中的适用性。这方面的新知识将有助于提出启动和终止eCPR的建议,从而有助于改善治疗结果。试验注册:PROSPERO CRD42024530305。
Neurological outcome predictors after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a systematic review.
Background: To consolidate current evidence on predictors of neurological outcome following extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) in patients with cardiac arrest.
Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature across databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Studies assessing neurological outcomes post-eCPR were identified, with a total of 10 studies eligible for individual assessment of which 8 comprising 4353 patients allowed to perform collective statistical analysis.
Results: Favorable neurological outcomes were associated with age < 65 years (OR = 6.17), shockable rhythm at extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation (OR = 6.67) or hospital arrival (OR = 3.68), and initial pH ≥ 7.0 (OR = 2.01). Other factors involved the presence of any life sign (gasping, positive pupillary light reaction, or increased level of consciousness before or throughout cardiopulmonary resuscitation) (OR = 9.63; Se 0.89, Sp 0.46, PPV 0.22, NPV 0.96), transient return of spontaneous circulation, non-hypoxic mechanism of occurred hepatitis, public location, and hypothermic etiology of cardiac arrest; however, each of those findings was supported by only one study. Unfavorable outcomes were linked to hypoxic brain injury on computed tomography (OR = 12.40; Se 0.366, Sp 0.955, PPV 0.767, NPV 0.787) and elevated serum creatinine (OR = 2.22). The TiPS65 scale showed high predictive accuracy in two studies when the cut-off point was set at 4 points (88.4% and 88.6%; Se 0.172, Sp 0.971, PPV 0.423, and NPV 0.906, and Se 0.193, Sp 0.985, PPV 0.646, and NPV 0.896, respectively). Some predictors, like call-to-hospital time and bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, had mixed results across studies.
Conclusion: Neurological prognostication in eCPR patients is a complex problem requiring the consideration of multiple variables regarding patient's and cardiac arrest characteristics. Future research should focus on the determination of outcome-affecting factors and assessment of their applicability in clinical settings. New knowledge on this ground will help to create recommendations for eCPR initiation and termination, consequently contributing to treatment results improvement.
期刊介绍:
Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.