Efficacy of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adult cardiac arrest patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Efficacy of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adult cardiac arrest patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/srep34208
复制
发表时间：
2016-09-23
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Lim TH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ahn C;Kim W;Cho Y;Choi KS;Jang BH;Lim TH
我们进行了一项荟萃分析，以比较体外心肺复苏（ECPR）与传统心肺复苏（CCPR）对经历心源性心脏骤停的成人患者的影响。使用预定义方案中规定的标准进行文献检索。报告的入选标准是，ECPR与CCPR在心源性心脏骤停成人患者中进行了比较，并且生存率和神经学结局数据可用。排除标准为描述非心源性停搏的报告、综述文章、社论和非人类研究。比较了ECPR和CCPR的生存率和神经功能结局。最终纳入了来自7项研究的38，160例患者。在院外心脏骤停患者中，ECPR显示出与CCPR相似的生存率（比值比[OR] 2.26，95%置信区间[CI] 0.45-11.20）和神经系统结局（OR 3.14，95% CI 0.66-14.85）。然而，对于住院心脏骤停（IHCA）患者，ECPR与显著优于CCPR的生存率（OR 2.40，95% CI 1.44-3.98）和神经功能结局（OR 2.63，95% CI 1.38-5.02）相关。因此，ECPR作为心源性IHCA患者生存和神经功能结局的辅助治疗可能比CCPR更有效。
We performed a meta-analysis to compare the impact of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) to that of conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) in adult patients who experience cardiac arrest of cardiac origin. A literature search was performed using criteria set forth in a predefined protocol. Report inclusion criteria were that ECPR was compared to CCPR in adult patients with cardiac arrest of cardiac origin, and that survival and neurological outcome data were available. Exclusion criteria were reports describing non-cardiac origin arrest, review articles, editorials, and nonhuman studies. The efficacies of ECPR and CCPR were compared in terms of survival and neurological outcome. A total of 38,160 patients from 7 studies were ultimately included. ECPR showed similar survival (odds ratio [OR] 2.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45–11.20) and neurologic outcomes (OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.66–14.85) to CCPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. For in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) patients, however, ECPR was associated with significantly better survival (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.44–3.98) and neurologic outcomes (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.38–5.02) than CCPR. Hence, ECPR may be more effective than CCPR as an adjuvant therapy for survival and neurologic outcome in cardiac-origin IHCA patients.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
9
作者：
Hemmila, MR;Rowe, SA;Bartlett, RH
通讯作者：
Bartlett, RH
影响因子：
15.1
作者：
Aubron, Cecile;Cheng, Allen C.;Pellegrino, Vince
通讯作者：
Pellegrino, Vince
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
Blumenstein, Johannes;Leick, Juergen;Moellmann, Helge
通讯作者：
Moellmann, Helge
影响因子：
37.8
作者：
Chan PS;McNally B;Tang F;Kellermann A;CARES Surveillance Group
通讯作者：
CARES Surveillance Group
影响因子：
158.5
作者：
Brodie, Daniel;Bacchetta, Matthew
通讯作者：
Bacchetta, Matthew