MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989972058 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000004130

Epinephrine for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis*

2019· review· en· W2989972058 on OpenAlexaff
Theresa Aves, Amit Chopra, Matthew Patel, Steve Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEpinephrinePlaceboReturn of spontaneous circulationRandomized controlled trialRelative riskAnesthesiaCardiopulmonary resuscitationMeta-analysisInternal medicineClinical trialResuscitationConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials evaluating epinephrine for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation. DATA SOURCES: The search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Ovid Evidence-Based Medicine, clinical trial registries, and bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared the current standard dose of epinephrine to placebo, high or low dose epinephrine, any other vasopressor alone or in combination were screened by three independent reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials that compared the current standard dose of epinephrine to placebo, high or low dose epinephrine, any other vasopressor alone or in combination were screened by three independent reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 17 trials (21,510 patients) were included; seven were judged to be at high risk of bias. Compared to placebo, pooled results from two trials showed that standard dose of epinephrine increased return of spontaneous circulation (risk ratio, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.82-3.89), survival to hospital admission (risk ratio, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.68-3.72), and survival to discharge (risk ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.86). The largest placebo-controlled trial showed that standard dose of epinephrine also improved survival at 30 days and 3 months but not neurologic outcomes, standard dose of epinephrine decreased return of spontaneous circulation (risk ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.98) and survival to admission (risk ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99) when compared with high dose epinephrine. There were no differences in outcomes between standard dose of epinephrine and vasopressin alone or in combination with epinephrine. CONCLUSIONS: Largely based on one randomized controlled trial, standard dose of epinephrine improved overall survival but not neurologic outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients compared with placebo. There is a paucity of trials with meaningful patient outcomes; future epinephrine trials should evaluate dose and method of delivery on long-term survival, neurologic function, and quality of life after cardiac arrest.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207