Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30508912›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2018

Predictors of survival and neurologic outcome for adults with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

Junhong Wang, Qingbian Ma, Hua Zhang, Shaoyu Liu, Yaan Zheng

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Association between stress hyperglycemia on admission and unfavorable neurological outcome in OHCA patients receiving ECPR.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Junhong WangEmergency Department, Peking University Third Hospital.
Qingbian MaEmergency Department, Peking University Third Hospital.
Hua ZhangResearch Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
Shaoyu LiuEmergency Department, Peking University Third Hospital.
Yaan ZhengEmergency Department, Peking University Third Hospital.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis systemic review aimed to explore the predictors of discharge and neurologic outcome of adult extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) to provide references for patient selection.

methodsElectronically searching of the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and manual retrieval were done for clinical trials about predictors for adult ECPR which were published between January 2000 and January 2018 and included predictors for discharge and neurologic outcome. The literature was screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, the baseline information and interested outcomes were extracted. Two reviewers assessed the methodologic quality of the included studies and the quality of evidence for summary estimates independently. Pooled mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by Review Manager Software 5.3. At last the quality of evidence for summary estimates was appraised according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation rating system.

resultsIn 16 studies, 1162 patients were enrolled. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (CA) (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.93, P = .02), in-hospital CA (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.08-2.77, P = .02), witnessed CA (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.18-22.88, P = .01), bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (OR 7.35, 95% CI 2.32-23.25, P < .01), initial shockable rhythm (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.53-3.42, P < .01), 1st recorded nonshockable rhythm (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.66, P < .01), CPR duration (MD -13.84 minutes, 95% CI -21 to -6.69, P < .0001), arrest-to-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (MD -17.88 minutes, 95% CI -23.59 to -12.17, P < .01), PH (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21, P < .01), lactate (MD -3.66 mmol/L, 95% CI -7.15 to -0.17, P = .04), and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.02-2.58, P = .04)were identified as the survival predictors of ECPR. Shockable rhythm (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.20-4.52, P = .01) and CPR duration (MD -9.85 minutes, 95% CI -15.71 to -3.99, P = .001) were identified as the neurologic outcome predictors of ECPR.

conclusionCurrent evidence showed that in-hospital CA, witnessed CA, bystander CPR, initial shockable rhythm, shorter CPR duration and arrest-to-ECMO duration, higher baseline PH, lower baseline lactate and PCI were favourable survival predictors of adult ECPR, and shockable rhythm and shorter CPR duration were good neurological outcome predictors of adult ECPR.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationHeart ArrestHumansPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID30508912
PMCPMC6283197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.