MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017651006 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000004377

Brain Injury and Neurologic Outcome in Patients Undergoing Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020· review· en· W3017651006 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ibrahim Migdady, Cory Rice, Abhishek Deshpande, Adrían V. Hernández, Carrie Price, Glenn Whitman, Romergryko G. Geocadin, Sung‐Min Cho

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeCardiopulmonary resuscitationExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitationExtracorporealRandomized controlled trialCochrane LibraryResuscitationMeta-analysisInternal medicineIntensive care medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation has shown survival benefit in select patients with refractory cardiac arrest but there is insufficient data on the frequency of different types of brain injury. We aimed to systematically review the prevalence, predictors of and survival from neurologic complications in patients who have undergone extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (PubMed) and six other databases (EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and Scopus) from inception to August 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials and observational studies in patients greater than 18 years old. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Study quality was assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and case-control studies, and the Murad tool for case series. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool data. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 78 studies included in our analysis encompassed 50,049 patients, of which 6,261 (12.5%) received extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Among extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation patients, the median age was 56 years (interquartile range, 52-59 yr), 3,933 were male (63%), 3,019 had out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (48%), and 2,289 had initial shockable heart rhythm (37%). The most common etiology of cardiac arrest was acute coronary syndrome (n = 1,657, 50% of reported). The median extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation duration was 3.2 days (interquartile range, 2.1-4.9 d). Overall, 27% (95% CI, 0.17-0.39%) had at least one neurologic complication, 23% (95% CI, 0.14-0.32%) hypoxic-ischemic brain injury, 6% (95% CI, 0.02-0.11%) ischemic stroke, 6% (95% CI, 0.01-0.16%) seizures, and 4% (95% CI, 0.01-0.1%) intracerebral hemorrhage. Seventeen percent (95% CI, 0.12-0.23%) developed brain death. The overall survival rate after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 29% (95% CI, 0.26-0.33%) and good neurologic outcome was achieved in 24% (95% CI, 0.21-0.28%). CONCLUSIONS: One in four patients developed acute brain injury after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the most common type was hypoxic-ischemic brain injury. One in four extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation patients achieved good neurologic outcome. Further research on assessing predictors of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation-associated brain injury is necessary.

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)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations80
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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