Prehospital Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the available published evidence of the effects of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in the prehospital setting on clinical outcomes in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews an Meta-Analyses guidelines. SETTING: In the prehospital setting. PARTICIPANTS: All randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational trials using pre-hospital ECPR in adult patients (>17 years). INTERVENTIONS: Prehospital ECPR. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study authors searched Medline, Embase, and PUBMED for all RCTs and observational trials. The studies were assessed for clinical, methodologic, and statistical heterogeneity. The primary outcome was survival at hospital discharge. The study outcomes were aggregated using random-effects meta-analysis of means or proportions as appropriate. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence. Four studies were included, with a total of 222 patients receiving prehospital ECPR (mean age = 51 years [95% CI 44-57], 81% of patients were male (CI 74-87), and 60% patients had a cardiac cause for their arrest (95% CI 43-76). Overall survival at discharge was 23.4% (95% CI 15.5-33.7; I2 = 62%). The pooled low-flow time was 61.1 minutes (95% CI 45.2-77.0; I2 = 97%). The quality of evidence was assessed to be low, and the overall risk of bias was assessed to be serious, with confounding being the primary source of bias. CONCLUSION: No definitive conclusions can be made as to the efficacy of prehospital ECPR in refractory cardiac arrest. Higher quality evidence is required.

Added Value of Interactive 3-D Stereo Vision Echocardiography in the Heart Valve Team: A Post Hoc Analysis for Optimal Decision Making in Patients With Mitral Valve Regurgitation.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the added value of advanced echocardiography post hoc analysis for optimal decision-making in the Heart Valve Team (HVT) using an interactive, dynamic, live visualization system with true three-dimensional (3-D) stereo vision. METHODS: HVT scrutinized the incremental value of 3 consecutive methods of presentation of full-volume echocardiographic data sets in terms of diagnosis and possibility of repair in 11 selected patients having mitral regurgitation (MR)(Table 1). The questionnaire investigated consecutively (a) standard two-dimensional (2-D) transesophageal echocardiography, (b) single-beat 3-D zoom of the surgical view of the mitral valve, and (c) advanced 3-D volumetric rendering technology (Personal Space Station, Vesalius 3D software, PS-Medtech, Netherlands). RESULTS: In 4 of 11 reviews (36%), single-beat 3-D zoom had additional value over 2-D echocardiography in terms of mechanism/adjustments or adjustment of confirmation of diagnosis. Single-beat 3-D zoom had no additional value over 2-D echocardiography in terms of proposal/probability of repair. In 7 out of 11 (64%) reviews, true stereo 3-D visualization had additional value in terms of mechanism of pathology compared to 2-D and 3-D zoom and in 5 out of 11 (45%) reviews in confirmation of diagnosis. In 3 out of 11 (27%) reviews, true stereo 3-D visualization had additional value in terms of proposal of repair and in 4 of 11 (36%) in probability of repair over 2-D and 3-D zoom. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced easy-to-use true 3-D echocardiography limited differences in interpretation and strengthened the confidence in understanding the mechanisms and suitability for repair of mitral valve regurgitation, typically in more complex valve pathology.

Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative: infection and sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative infection and sepsis are of fundamental concern to perioperative clinicians. However, standardised endpoints are either poorly defined or not routinely implemented. The Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative was established to derive a set of standardised endpoints for use in perioperative clinical trials. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review to identify measures of infection and sepsis used in the perioperative literature. A multi-round Delphi consensus process that included more than 60 clinician researchers was then used to refine a recommended list of outcome measures. RESULTS: A literature search yielded 1857 titles of which 255 met inclusion criteria for endpoint extraction. A long list of endpoints, with definitions and timescales, was generated and those potentially relevant to infection and sepsis circulated to the theme subgroup and then the wider StEP-COMPAC working group, undergoing a three-stage Delphi process. The response rates for Delphi rounds 1, 3, and 3 were 89% (n=8), 67% (n=62), and 80% (n=8), respectively. A set of 13 endpoints including fever, surgical site, and organ-specific infections as defined by the US Centres for Disease Control and Sepsis-3 are proposed for future use. CONCLUSIONS: We defined a consensus list of standardised endpoints related to infection and sepsis for perioperative trials using an established and rigorous approach. Each endpoint was evaluated with respect to validity, reliability, feasibility, and patient centredness. One or more of these should be considered for inclusion in future perioperative clinical trials assessing infection, sepsis, or both, thereby permitting synthesis and comparison of future results.