Meta-Analysis Comparing Cardiac Arrest Outcomes Before and After Resuscitation Guideline Updates

Updates of resuscitation guidelines have limited high-level supporting evidence. Moreover, the overall effect of such bundled practice changes depends not only on the impact of the individual interventions but also on their interplay and swift functioning of the entire chain of survival. Therefore,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American journal of cardiology 2020-02, Vol.125 (4), p.618-629
Hauptverfasser: Nas, Joris, te Grotenhuis, Ruben, Bonnes, Judith L., Furlaneto, José M., van Royen, Niels, Smeets, Joep L.R.M., de Boer, Menko-Jan, Navarese, Eliano P., Brouwer, Marc A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Updates of resuscitation guidelines have limited high-level supporting evidence. Moreover, the overall effect of such bundled practice changes depends not only on the impact of the individual interventions but also on their interplay and swift functioning of the entire chain of survival. Therefore, real-world data monitoring is essential. We performed a meta-analysis of comparative studies on outcomes before and after successive guideline updates. On January 16, 2019, we searched for comparative studies (PubMed, Web-of-Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Libraries) reporting outcomes before and after resuscitation guidelines 2005, 2010, and 2015. We followed PRISMA, Cochrane, and Moose-recommendations. Studies on outcomes during the 2005 versus 2000 guideline period (n = 23; 40,859 patients) reported significantly higher ROSC (odds ratio [OR] 1.21 [1.04 to 1.42], p = 0.014), survival to admission (OR 1.34 [1.09 to 1.65], p = 0.005), survival to discharge (OR 1.46 [1.25 to 1.70], p
ISSN:0002-9149
1879-1913
DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.11.007