RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Echocardiography in the setting of resuscitation can provide information as to the cause of the cardiac arrest, as well as indicators of futility. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the value of point-of-care ultrasonography (PoCUS) in the assessment of survival for adult patients with cardiac arrest. METHODS: This meta-analysis was performed in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane have been searched from databases inception until March 2nd 2021. The search was limited to adult patients with cardiac arrest and without publication dates or country restrictions. Papers were chosen if they met the required criteria relating to the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of this diagnostic technique concerning resuscitation outcomes. RESULTS: This systematic review identified 20 studies. Overall, for survival to hospital discharge, PoCUS was 6.2% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.7% to 8.0%) and 2.1% specific (95% CI 0.8-4.2%). PoCUS sensitivity and specificity for return of spontaneous circulation were 23.8% (95% CI 21.4-26.4%) and 50.7% (95% CI 45.8-55.7%) respectively, and for survival to admission 13.8% (95% CI 12.2-15.5%) and 20.1% (95% CI 16.2-24.3%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not allow unambiguous recommendation of PoCUS as a predictor of resuscitation outcomes and further studies based on a large number of patients with full standardization of operators, their training and procedures performed were necessary.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The main purposes of this meta-analysis are to update the information about the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and to investigate the impact of being infected by by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on IHCA outcomes. METHODS: The current meta-analysis is an update and follows the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). RESULTS: In analyses, pre- and intra-COVID-19 periods were observed for: shockable rhythms in 17.6% vs. 16.2% (odds ratio [OR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71-1.72; p = 0.65), return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in 47.4% vs. 44.0% (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.90-2.07; p = 0.15), 30-day mortality in 59.8% vs. 60.9% (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.75-1.22; p = 0.69) and overall mortality 75.8% vs. 74.7% (OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.49-1.28; p = 0.35), respectively. In analyses, SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative patients were observed for: shockable rhythms in 9.6% vs. 19.8% (OR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.35-0.73; p < 0.001), ROSC in 33.9% vs. 52.1% (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30-0.73; p < 0.001), 30-day mortality in 77.2% vs. 59.7% (OR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.28-3.38; p = 0.003) and overall mortality in 94.9% vs. 76.7% (OR: 3.20; 95% CI: 0.98-10.49; p = 0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ROSC, 30-day and overall mortality rate were not statistically different in pre- vs. intra-COVID-19 periods, a lower incidence of ROSC and higher 20-day mortality rate were observed in SARS-CoV-2 (+) compared to SARS-CoV-2 (-) patients.