SynthesisPloS one2023
How effective is extracorporeal life support for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest initiated at the emergency department? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is commonly initiated for adults experiencing cardiac arrest within the cardiac catheterization lab or the intensive care unit. However, the potential benefit of ECPR for these patients in the emergency department (ED) remains undocumented. This study aims to assess the benefit of ECPR initiated in the ED for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing ECPR initiated in the ED versus conventional CPR. Relevant articles were identified by searching several databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane collaborations up to July 31, 2022. Pooled estimates were calculated using the inverse variance heterogeneity method, while heterogeneity was evaluated using Q and I2 statistics. The risk of bias in included studies was evaluated using validated bias assessment tools. The primary outcome was a favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge, and the secondary outcome was survival to hospital discharge or 30-day survival. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the benefits of ED-initiated ECPR in studies utilizing propensity score (PPS) analysis. Publication bias was assessed using Doi plots and the Luis Furuya-Kanamori (LFK) index.
resultsThe meta-analysis included a total of eight studies comprising 51,173 patients. ED-initiated ECPR may not be associated with a significant increase in favorable neurological outcomes (odds ratio [OR] 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-6.70, I2 = 96%). However, this intervention may be linked to improved survival to hospital discharge (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.23-5.01, I2 = 17%). Notably, when analyzing only PPS data, ED-initiated ECPR demonstrated efficacy for both favorable neurological outcomes (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.26-2.83, I2 = 21%) and survival to hospital discharge (OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.52-7.49, I2 = 57%). Publication bias was detected for primary (LFK index 2.50) and secondary (LFK index 2.14) outcomes.
conclusionThe results of this study indicate that ED-initiated ECPR may not offer significant benefits in terms of favorable neurological outcomes for OHCA patients. However, it may be associated with increased survival to hospital discharge. Future studies should prioritize randomized trials with larger sample sizes and strive for homogeneity in patient populations to obtain more robust evidence in this area.
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.