Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing low-flow duration of extracorporeal and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Abstract

OBJECTIVESAfter cardiac arrest, a key factor determining survival outcomes is low-flow duration. Our aims were to determine the relation of survival and low-flow duration of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) and if these 2 therapies have different short-term survival curves in relation to low-flow duration.METHODSWe searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science and Google Scholar from inception up to April 2021. A linear mixed-effect model was used to describe the course of survival over time, based on study-specific and time-specific aggregated survival data.RESULTSWe included 42 observational studies reporting on 1689 ECPR and 375 751 CCPR procedures. Of the included studies, 25 included adults, 13 included children and 4 included both. In adults, survival curves decline rapidly over time (ECPR 37.2%, 29.8%, 23.8% and 19.1% versus CCPR-shockable 36.8%, 7.2%, 1.4% and 0.3% for 15, 30, 45 and 60 min low-flow, respectively). ECPR was associated with a statistically significant slower decline in survival than CCPR with initial shockable rhythms (CCPR-shockable). In children, survival curves decline rapidly over time (ECPR 43.6%, 41.7%, 39.8% and 38.0% versus CCPR-shockable 48.6%, 20.5%, 8.6% and 3.6% for 15, 30, 45 and 60 min low-flow, respectively). ECPR was associated with a statistically significant slower decline in survival than CCPR-shockable.CONCLUSIONSThe short-term survival of ECPR and CCPR-shockable patients both decline rapidly over time, in adults as well as in children. This decline of short-term survival in relation to low-flow duration in ECPR was slower than in conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Trial registrationProspero: CRD42020212480, 2 October 2020.