Conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:与常规心肺复苏(CCPR)相比,体外心肺复苏(ECPR)对心脏骤停(CA)患者的潜在益处仍存在争议.我们旨在确定与CCPR相比,ECPR是否可以改善CA患者的预后。
    方法:我们系统地搜索了PubMed,EMBASE,和Cochrane图书馆从数据库开始到2023年7月,确定了随机对照试验(RCT)或队列研究,这些试验或研究比较了成人(≥16岁)发生院外心脏骤停(OHCA)和院内心脏骤停(IHCA)的ECPR和CCPR。这项荟萃分析是使用随机效应模型进行的。两名研究人员独立审查了这项研究的相关性,提取的数据,并对纳入文献的质量进行评价。主要结局是短期(从出院到心脏骤停后1个月)和长期(心脏骤停后≥90天)生存,具有良好的神经状态(定义为脑功能类别评分1或2)。次要结果包括1个月时的生存期,3-6个月,心脏骤停后1年。
    结果:荟萃分析包括3项RCT和14项队列研究,涉及167,728例患者。我们发现ECPR可以显着改善良好的神经系统预后(RR1.82,95CI1.42-2.34,I2=41%)和生存率(RR1.51,95CI1.20-1.89,I2=62%)。此外,结果显示,ECPR对OHCA患者的良好神经状态有不同的影响(短期:RR1.50,95CI0.98-2.29,I2=55%;长期:RR1.95,95%CI1.06-3.59,I2=11%).然而,ECPR对IHCA患者神经状态的影响明显优于CCPR(短期:RR2.18,95CI1.24-3.81,I2=9%;长期:RR2.17,95%CI1.19-3.94,I2=0%)。
    结论:这项荟萃分析表明,ECPR对良好的神经系统预后和生存率的影响明显优于CCPR。尤其是IHCA患者。然而,需要更多高质量的研究来探讨ECPR在OHCA患者中的作用.
    OBJECTIVE: Compared to the conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR), potential benefits of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for patients with cardiac arrest (CA) are still controversial. We aimed to determine whether ECPR can improve the prognosis of CA patients compared with CCPR.
    METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from database\'s inception to July 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that compared ECPR with CCPR in adults (aged ≥ 16 years) with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). This meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Two researchers independently reviewed the relevance of the study, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the included literature. The primary outcome was short-term (from hospital discharge to one month after cardiac arrest) and long-term (≥ 90 days after cardiac arrest) survival with favorable neurological status (defined as cerebral performance category scores 1 or 2). Secondary outcomes included survival at 1 months, 3-6 months, and 1 year after cardiac arrest.
    RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 3 RCTs and 14 cohort studies involving 167,728 patients. We found that ECPR can significantly improve good neurological prognosis (RR 1.82, 95%CI 1.42-2.34, I2 = 41%) and survival rate (RR 1.51, 95%CI 1.20-1.89, I2 = 62%). In addition, the results showed that ECPR had different effects on favorable neurological status in patients with OHCA (short-term: RR 1.50, 95%CI 0.98- 2.29, I2 = 55%; long-term: RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.06-3.59, I2 = 11%). However, ECPR had significantly better effects on neurological status than CCPR in patients with IHCA (short-term: RR 2.18, 95%CI 1.24- 3.81, I2 = 9%; long-term: RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.19-3.94, I2 = 0%).
    CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicated that ECPR had significantly better effects on good neurological prognosis and survival rate than CCPR, especially in patients with IHCA. However, more high-quality studies are needed to explore the role of ECPR in patients with OHCA.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:院外心脏骤停(OHCA)的发生率很高。尽管体外心肺复苏(ECPR)已被认为是常规心肺复苏(CCPR)失败后难治性心脏骤停的潜在治疗方法,ECPR在难治性OHCA中的获益仍不确定.
    方法:在这项回顾性队列研究中,我们纳入了2018年1月至2023年4月在航空航天中心医院急诊科就诊的难治性OHCA患者.我们将患者分为ECPR组和CCPR组。研究的主要终点是两组患者在心脏骤停后3个月的神经功能。通过对ECPR组中神经功能良好的存活患者进行单变量和多变量相关分析,我们使用倾向评分匹配来减少选择偏倚,并确定OHCA接受ECPR治疗时与神经功能良好相关的因素。
    结果:在研究期间,我们招募了133名患者,由ECPR组中的33和CCPR组中的100组成。出院时神经功能良好的患者,ECPR组为18.2%(6/33例),CCPR组为9%(9/100例),p=.20。出院三个月后,ECPR组神经功能良好患者的生存率为15.2%(5/33例),CCPR组为8%(8/100例),p=.31。使用倾向得分匹配,我们确定了22对患者进行进一步分析.其中,出院后3个月,ECPR组神经功能良好患者的生存率为13.6%(3/22例),CCPR组为4.5%(1/22例),p=.61,出院时生存率ECPR组为18.2%(4/22例),CCPR组为4.5%(1/22例),p=.34。ECPR组神经功能良好患者的单因素分析显示,无灌注时间,灌注不足时间,PCI治疗是影响患者神经功能预后的相关因素,多因素分析显示,灌注不足时间与良好的神经功能独立相关,OR(95%CI)为1.06(1.00-1.14),p=0.05。
    结论:我们的研究结果表明,ECPR未能显著改善难治性OHCA患者的神经系统预后;然而,本研究中的小样本量可能不足以检测临床相关差异.此外,灌注不足时间可能是确定ECPR候选者的关键预测因素。
    OBJECTIVE: The incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is high. Though extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has been considered a potential treatment for refractory cardiac arrest after failure of conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR), the benefit of ECPR in refractory OHCA remains uncertain.
    METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included patients with refractory OHCA who visited the Emergency Department of the Aerospace Center Hospital between January 2018 and April 2023. We divided the patients into the ECPR Group and the CCPR Group. The primary endpoint of the study was the neurological function of the patients in both groups 3 months after the cardiac arrest. We used propensity score matching to reduce selection bias and identified factors associated with good neurological function when OHCA was treated with ECPR by performing univariate and multivariate correlation analyses on surviving patients with good neurological function in the ECPR group.
    RESULTS: During the study period, we enrolled 133 patients, consisting of 33 in the ECPR group and 100 in the CCPR group. The survival rate of patients with good neurological function at discharge was 18.2% (6/33 cases) in the ECPR group and 9% (9/100 cases) in the CCPR group, p = .20. Three months after discharge, the survival rate of patients with good neurological function was 15.2% (5/33 cases) in the ECPR group and 8% (8/100 cases) in the CCPR group, p = .31. Using propensity score matching, we identified 22 pairs of patients for further analysis. Among these, 3 months after discharge, the survival rate of patients with good neurological function was 13.6% (3/22 cases) in the ECPR group and 4.5% (1/22 cases) in the CCPR group, p = .61, and the survival rate at discharge was 18.2% (4/22 cases) in the ECPR group and 4.5% (1/22 cases) in the CCPR group, p = .34. The univariate analysis of patients with good neurological function in the ECPR group showed that time without perfusion, hypoperfusion time, and PCI treatment were associated factors affecting the prognosis of neurological function in patients, while multivariate analysis showed that hypoperfusion time was independently associated with good neurological function, with an OR (95% CI) of 1.06 (1.00-1.14) and p = .05.
    CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that ECPR failed to significantly improve neurological outcome in patients with refractory OHCA; however, the small sample size in this study may be insufficient to detect clinically relevant differences. In addition, hypoperfusion time may be a key predictive factor in identifying candidates for ECPR.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Comparative Study
    OBJECTIVE: The management of cardiac arrest after cardiac surgery differs from the management of cardiac arrest under other circumstances. In other studies, interposed abdominal compression-cardiopulmonary resuscitation (IAC-CPR) resulted in a better outcome compared with conventional CPR. The aim of the present study was to determine the feasibility, safety and efficacy of IAC-CPR compared with conventional CPR in patients with cardiac arrest after cardiac surgery.
    METHODS: Data on all cardiac surgical patients who suffered a sudden cardiac arrest during the first 24 h after surgery were collected prospectively. Cardiac arrest was defined as the cessation of cardiac mechanical activity with the absence of a palpable central pulse, apnoea and unresponsiveness, including ventricular fibrillation, asystole and pulseless electrical activity. Forty patients were randomized to either conventional CPR (n = 21) or IAC-CPR (n = 19). IAC-CPR was initially performed by compressing the abdomen midway between the xiphoid and the umbilicus during the relaxation phase of chest compression. If spontaneous circulation was not restored after 10-15 min, the surgical team would immediately proceed to resternotomy. The endpoints of the study were safety, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) >5 min, survival to hospital discharge and survival for 6 months.
    RESULTS: With IAC-CPR, there were more patients in terms of ROSC, survival to hospital discharge, survival for 6 months and fewer CPR-related injuries compared with patients who underwent conventional CPR.
    CONCLUSIONS: IAC-CPR is feasible and safe and may be advantageous in cases of cardiac arrest after cardiac surgery.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

公众号