Use of Corticosteroids in Cardiac Arrest—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of intraarrest corticosteroids on neurologic outcomes and mortality in patients with cardiac arrest. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic search using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases. STUDY SELECTION: We included all randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies. We excluded single arm studies, case reports/series, narrative reviews, and studies irrelevant to the focus of this article. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility. Data were collected for the following outcomes: primary outcomes included good neurologic outcome, survival to hospital discharge, and survival at greater than or equal to 1 year. Secondary outcomes included incidence of return of spontaneous circulation, ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of vasopressor and inotropic treatment, and blood pressure during cardiopulmonary resuscitation and after return of spontaneous circulation. DATA SYNTHESIS: The pooled estimates from randomized controlled trials for the following subgroups were analyzed using random-effects models: 1) patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest who received vasopressin, steroids, and epinephrine; 2) patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest who used corticosteroids only (i.e., no vasopressin); and 3) patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who used corticosteroids only. Results included an increase in good neurologic outcomes (relative risk, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.36-5.94) and survival to hospital discharge (relative risk, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.36-4.91) in in-hospital cardiac arrest patients receiving vasopressin, steroids, and epinephrine followed by corticosteroids for postresuscitation shock. This was further supported by an increase in return of spontaneous circulation (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.12-1.64) and hemodynamics in this population. There was no benefit observed in in-hospital cardiac arrest or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients receiving corticosteroids alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that there are limited high-quality data to analyze the association between corticosteroids and reducing mortality in cardiac arrest, but the available data do support future randomized controlled trials. We did find that corticosteroids given as part of a vasopressin, steroids, and epinephrine regimen in in-hospital cardiac arrest patients and for postresuscitation shock did improve neurologic outcomes, survival to hospital discharge, and surrogate outcomes that include return of spontaneous circulation and hemodynamics. We found no benefit in in-hospital cardiac arrest or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients receiving corticosteroids only; however, a difference cannot be ruled out due to imprecision and lack of available data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".