Does care at a cardiac arrest centre improve outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest? - A systematic review

J. Yeung, T. Matsuyama, J. Bray, J. Reynolds, M. B. Skrifvars

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: To perform a systematic review to answer ‘In adults with attempted resuscitation after non-traumatic cardiac arrest does care at a specialised cardiac arrest centre (CAC) compared to care in a healthcare facility not designated as a specialised cardiac arrest centre improve patient outcomes?’ Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed. We searched bibliographic databases (Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL)) from inception to 1st August 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently scrutinized studies for relevance, extracted data and assessed quality of studies. Risk of bias of studies and quality of evidence were assessed using ROBINS-I tool and GRADEpro respectively. Primary outcomes were survival to 30 days with favourable neurological outcomes and survival to hospital discharge with favourable neurological outcomes. Secondary outcomes were survival to 30 days, survival to hospital discharge and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) post-hospital arrival for patients with ongoing resuscitation. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42018093369) Results: We included data from 17 observational studies on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients in meta-analyses. Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low. Pooling data from only adjusted analyses, care at CAC was not associated with increased likelihood of survival to 30 days with favourable neurological outcome (OR 2.92, 95% CI 0.68–12.48) and survival to 30 days (OR 2.14, 95% CI 0.73–6.29) compared to care at other hospitals. Whereas patients cared for at CACs had improved survival to hospital discharge with favourable neurological outcomes (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.74–2.84) and survival to hospital discharge (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.46–2.34). Conclusions: Very low certainty of evidence suggests that post-cardiac arrest care at CACs is associated with improved outcomes at hospital discharge. There remains a need for high quality data to fully elucidate the impact of CACs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)102-115
Number of pages14
JournalResuscitation
Volume137
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2019

Keywords

  • Cardiac arrest centres
  • Out of hospital cardiac arrests
  • Systematic review

Cite this

@article{90ece1c1abbd4cb0a38d219705bf810a,
title = "Does care at a cardiac arrest centre improve outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest? - A systematic review",
abstract = "Aim: To perform a systematic review to answer ‘In adults with attempted resuscitation after non-traumatic cardiac arrest does care at a specialised cardiac arrest centre (CAC) compared to care in a healthcare facility not designated as a specialised cardiac arrest centre improve patient outcomes?’ Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed. We searched bibliographic databases (Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL)) from inception to 1st August 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently scrutinized studies for relevance, extracted data and assessed quality of studies. Risk of bias of studies and quality of evidence were assessed using ROBINS-I tool and GRADEpro respectively. Primary outcomes were survival to 30 days with favourable neurological outcomes and survival to hospital discharge with favourable neurological outcomes. Secondary outcomes were survival to 30 days, survival to hospital discharge and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) post-hospital arrival for patients with ongoing resuscitation. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42018093369) Results: We included data from 17 observational studies on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients in meta-analyses. Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low. Pooling data from only adjusted analyses, care at CAC was not associated with increased likelihood of survival to 30 days with favourable neurological outcome (OR 2.92, 95{\%} CI 0.68–12.48) and survival to 30 days (OR 2.14, 95{\%} CI 0.73–6.29) compared to care at other hospitals. Whereas patients cared for at CACs had improved survival to hospital discharge with favourable neurological outcomes (OR 2.22, 95{\%} CI 1.74–2.84) and survival to hospital discharge (OR 1.85, 95{\%} CI 1.46–2.34). Conclusions: Very low certainty of evidence suggests that post-cardiac arrest care at CACs is associated with improved outcomes at hospital discharge. There remains a need for high quality data to fully elucidate the impact of CACs.",
keywords = "Cardiac arrest centres, Out of hospital cardiac arrests, Systematic review",
author = "J. Yeung and T. Matsuyama and J. Bray and J. Reynolds and Skrifvars, {M. B.}",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.02.006",
language = "English",
volume = "137",
pages = "102--115",
journal = "Resuscitation",
issn = "0300-9572",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Does care at a cardiac arrest centre improve outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest? - A systematic review. / Yeung, J.; Matsuyama, T.; Bray, J.; Reynolds, J.; Skrifvars, M. B.

In: Resuscitation, Vol. 137, 04.2019, p. 102-115.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview ArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does care at a cardiac arrest centre improve outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest? - A systematic review

AU - Yeung, J.

AU - Matsuyama, T.

AU - Bray, J.

AU - Reynolds, J.

AU - Skrifvars, M. B.

PY - 2019/4

Y1 - 2019/4

N2 - Aim: To perform a systematic review to answer ‘In adults with attempted resuscitation after non-traumatic cardiac arrest does care at a specialised cardiac arrest centre (CAC) compared to care in a healthcare facility not designated as a specialised cardiac arrest centre improve patient outcomes?’ Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed. We searched bibliographic databases (Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL)) from inception to 1st August 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently scrutinized studies for relevance, extracted data and assessed quality of studies. Risk of bias of studies and quality of evidence were assessed using ROBINS-I tool and GRADEpro respectively. Primary outcomes were survival to 30 days with favourable neurological outcomes and survival to hospital discharge with favourable neurological outcomes. Secondary outcomes were survival to 30 days, survival to hospital discharge and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) post-hospital arrival for patients with ongoing resuscitation. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42018093369) Results: We included data from 17 observational studies on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients in meta-analyses. Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low. Pooling data from only adjusted analyses, care at CAC was not associated with increased likelihood of survival to 30 days with favourable neurological outcome (OR 2.92, 95% CI 0.68–12.48) and survival to 30 days (OR 2.14, 95% CI 0.73–6.29) compared to care at other hospitals. Whereas patients cared for at CACs had improved survival to hospital discharge with favourable neurological outcomes (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.74–2.84) and survival to hospital discharge (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.46–2.34). Conclusions: Very low certainty of evidence suggests that post-cardiac arrest care at CACs is associated with improved outcomes at hospital discharge. There remains a need for high quality data to fully elucidate the impact of CACs.

AB - Aim: To perform a systematic review to answer ‘In adults with attempted resuscitation after non-traumatic cardiac arrest does care at a specialised cardiac arrest centre (CAC) compared to care in a healthcare facility not designated as a specialised cardiac arrest centre improve patient outcomes?’ Methods: The PRISMA guidelines were followed. We searched bibliographic databases (Embase, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL)) from inception to 1st August 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently scrutinized studies for relevance, extracted data and assessed quality of studies. Risk of bias of studies and quality of evidence were assessed using ROBINS-I tool and GRADEpro respectively. Primary outcomes were survival to 30 days with favourable neurological outcomes and survival to hospital discharge with favourable neurological outcomes. Secondary outcomes were survival to 30 days, survival to hospital discharge and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) post-hospital arrival for patients with ongoing resuscitation. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42018093369) Results: We included data from 17 observational studies on out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients in meta-analyses. Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low. Pooling data from only adjusted analyses, care at CAC was not associated with increased likelihood of survival to 30 days with favourable neurological outcome (OR 2.92, 95% CI 0.68–12.48) and survival to 30 days (OR 2.14, 95% CI 0.73–6.29) compared to care at other hospitals. Whereas patients cared for at CACs had improved survival to hospital discharge with favourable neurological outcomes (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.74–2.84) and survival to hospital discharge (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.46–2.34). Conclusions: Very low certainty of evidence suggests that post-cardiac arrest care at CACs is associated with improved outcomes at hospital discharge. There remains a need for high quality data to fully elucidate the impact of CACs.

KW - Cardiac arrest centres

KW - Out of hospital cardiac arrests

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062096760&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.02.006

DO - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.02.006

M3 - Review Article

C2 - 30779976

AN - SCOPUS:85062096760

VL - 137

SP - 102

EP - 115

JO - Resuscitation

JF - Resuscitation

SN - 0300-9572

ER -