51. P1709A comprehensive meta-analysis on the impact of cardiopulmonary resuscitation guideline changes on outcomes after in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
- Author
-
R Te Grotenhuis, Judith L. Bonnes, M.J. de Boer, Marc A. Brouwer, Joep L.R.M. Smeets, Joris Nas, N. van Royen, Jos Thannhauser, J Furlaneto, and Eliano Pio Navarese
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,business.industry ,medicine.medical_treatment ,Meta-analysis ,Emergency medicine ,Medicine ,Cardiopulmonary resuscitation ,Guideline ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business ,Out of hospital cardiac arrest - Abstract
Background Studies on international registries report improved outcomes after in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest over the last decade. The 2015 resuscitation guidelines incorporate initiatives derived from both guidelines 2005 and 2010, respectively. Purpose In order to assess the impact of these respective updates, we aim to provide the most comprehensive quantitative summary of comparative studies that specifically focused on outcomes before and after guideline updates. Methods PubMed, Web-of-Science, Embase and The Cochrane Libraries were searched for studies that compared clinical outcomes of patients resuscitated in the period before and after introduction of guidelines 2010 and 2005, respectively. Results For studies on guidelines 2010 vs. 2005 (n=6; 1,002 patients), the pooled estimate did not indicate a difference [OR 1.29 (95% CI 0.74–2.25) p=0.372] in return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). For survival to discharge a significant benefit [OR 1.70 (1.01–2.84) p=0.045] was observed for patients resuscitated according to guideline 2010. As for guidelines 2005 vs. 2000 (n=23; 40,859 patients), the pooled estimates for ROSC, survival to admission, to discharge and favourable neurologic outcome consistently indicated benefit for guideline 2005 [OR 1.21 (1.04–1.42) p=0.014; OR 1.34 (1.09–1.65) p=0.005; OR 1.46 (1.25–1.70) p Conclusions This comprehensive meta-analysis quantifies the positive impact of resuscitation guideline updates on outcomes and supports the current way of guideline development. While there is robust evidence for improved overall outcomes after guidelines 2005, the 2010 guideline benefit was restricted to improved survival to discharge. In terms of quality control, our findings call for continued initiatives to monitor outcomes after guideline updates. Acknowledgement/Funding None
- Published
- 2019