Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Cardiac arrest centres for patients with non-traumatic cardiac arrest: A systematic review
Authors' conclusion
Randomised evidence has not confirmed the benefits of CACs found in observational studies, however this RCT was a single trial in a very specific setting and a population without ST elevation on post-ROSC ECG.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest16 studies (1 randomised controlled trial (RCT))
- Participants
- over 145,000 adults
- Comparison
- Cardiac arrest centre care vs non-CAC care
- Outcome
- Survival to hospital discharge with favourable neurological outcome
Methodological detailsnarrative synthesis, GRADE certainty assessment, Observational studies all at moderate or serious risk of bias; RCT at low risk of bias
- Narrative synthesis
- GRADE certainty assessment
- Observational studies all at moderate or serious risk of bias; RCT at low risk of bias
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- Reported by 11 studies; favoured CAC care in all observational studies, but the RCT showed no difference
- Meta-analysis precluded by heterogeneity; narrative synthesis
- Very low certainty of evidence
Further pooled results
Survival to 30 days with favourable neurological outcome
- Reported by 2 observational studies; favoured CAC care in both
Survival to hospital discharge
- Reported by 13 observational studies; generally favoured CAC care
Survival to 30 days
- Reported by 2 studies; observational study favoured CAC care, but the RCT showed no difference
Original publication
Cardiac arrest centres for patients with non-traumatic cardiac arrest: A systematic review. Resuscitation. Published 4 September 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →