ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Outcome of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest among Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulsed-field ablation versus thermal ablation for atrial fibrillation: an updated systematic review and meta -analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies with time-to-event analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Review
- Cardiovascular Complications of COVID-19 Disease: A Narrative Review.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOutcomes following in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in patients with COVID-19 have been reported by several small single-institutional studies; however, there are no large studies contrasting COVID-19 IHCA with non-COVID-19 IHCA. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes following IHCA between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients.
methodsWe searched databases using predefined search terms and appropriate Boolean operators. All the relevant articles published till August 2022 were included in the analyses. The systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to measure effects.
resultsAmong 855 studies screened, 6 studies with 27,453 IHCA patients (63.84% male) with COVID-19 and 20,766 (59.7% male) without COVID-19 were included in the analysis. IHCA among patients with COVID-19 has lower odds of achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.62-0.70). Similarly, patients with COVID-19 have higher odds of 30-day mortality following IHCA (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 2.08-2.45) and have 45% lower odds of cardiac arrest because of a shockable rhythm (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.50-0.60) (9.59% vs. 16.39%). COVID-19 patients less commonly underwent targeted temperature management (TTM) or coronary angiography; however, they were more commonly intubated and on vasopressor therapy as compared to patients who did not have a COVID-19 infection.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis showed that IHCA with COVID-19 has a higher mortality and lower rates of ROSC compared with non-COVID-19 IHCA. COVID-19 is an independent risk factor for poor outcomes in IHCA patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.