Background: In adults with refractory out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest, when conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) alone does not achieve return of spontaneous circulation, extracorporeal CPR is attempted to restore perfusion and improve outcomes. Considering the contrasting findings of recent studies, we conducted a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials to ascertain the effect of extracorporeal CPR on survival and neurological outcome.Methods: Pubmed via MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to February 3, 2023, for randomized controlled trials comparing extracorporeal CPR versus conventional CPR in adults with refractory out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest. Survival with a favorable neurological outcome at the longest follow‐up available was the primary outcome.Results: Among four randomized controlled trials included, extracorporeal CPR compared with conventional CPR increased survival with favorable neurological outcome at the longest follow‐up available for all rhythms (59/220 [27%] vs. 39/213 [18%]; OR = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.09–2.70; p = 0.02; I² = 26%; number needed to treat of 9), for initial shockable rhythms only (55/164 [34%] vs. 38/165 [23%]; OR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.16–3.13; p = 0.01; I² = 23%; number needed to treat of 7), and at hospital discharge or 30 days (55/220 [25%] vs. 34/212 [16%]; OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.13–2.92; p = 0.01; I² = 0.0%). Overall survival at the longest follow‐up available was similar (61/220 [25%] vs. 34/212 [16%]; OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.13–2.92; p = 0.59; I² = 58%).Conclusions: Extracorporeal CPR compared with conventional CPR increased survival with favorable neurological outcome in adults with refractory out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest, especially when the initial rhythm was shockable.Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023396482.

Background: In selected patients with refractory out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation represents a promising approach when conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation fails to achieve return of spontaneous circulation. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to compare extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to November 28, 2021, for randomized trials and observational studies reporting propensity score‐matched data and comparing adults with out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest treated with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation with those treated with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The primary outcome was survival with favorable neurological outcome at the longest follow‐up available. Secondary outcomes were survival at the longest follow‐up available and survival at hospital discharge/30 days.Results: We included six studies, two randomized and four propensity score‐matched studies. Patients treated with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation had higher rates of survival with favorable neurological outcome (81/584 [14%] vs. 46/593 [7.8%]; OR = 2.11; 95% CI, 1.41–3.15; p < 0.001, number needed to treat 16) and of survival (131/584 [22%] vs. 102/593 [17%]; OR = 1.40; 95% CI, 1.05–1.87; p = 0.02) at the longest follow‐up available compared with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Survival at hospital discharge/30 days was similar between the two groups (142/584 [24%] vs. 122/593 [21%]; OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 0.95–1.66; p = 0.10).Conclusions: Evidence from randomized trials and propensity score‐matched studies suggests increased survival and favorable neurological outcome in patients with refractory out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest treated with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Large, multicentre randomized studies are still ongoing to confirm these findings.

Background: Volatile anesthetics were used as sedative agents in COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) invasively ventilated patients for their potentially beneficial pharmacological effects and due to the temporary shortages of intravenous agents during the pandemic crisis. Methods: Online databases (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial) and the “clinicaltrials.gov” website were searched for studies reporting the use of isoflurane, sevoflurane or desflurane. Results: We identified three manuscripts describing the beneficial effects of isoflurane on 41 COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in Germany (n = 2) and in the USA (n = 1), in terms of reduction in the use of opioids and other sedatives. We also found a case report of two patients with transient nephrogenic diabetes insipidus, which started after 6 and 8 days of sevoflurane sedation. We identified two randomized controlled trials (RCTs; 92 patients overall), two observational studies (238 patients) on the use of volatile anesthetics in COVID-19 patients that were completed but not yet published, and one RCT interrupted for a low recruitment ratio (19 patients) and thus not published. We also identified five ongoing RCTs on the use of inhaled sedation in ARDS, which are also likely to be recruiting COVID-19 patients and which have currently enrolled a total of >1643 patients. Conclusion: Isoflurane was the most frequently used volatile agent in COVID-19 patients and allowed a reduction in the use of other sedative and analgesic drugs. Randomized evidence is building up and will be useful to confirm or challenge these findings.

Clevidipine is an ultrafast-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist with selective arteriolar-dilating effects that may be suitable for afterload