Key result
Thrombolytics during cardiac arrest show encouraging survival outcomes despite limited and flawed current evidence.
Why the study?
No drug has been reliably proved to increase survival to discharge after cardiac arrest, and the role of thrombolytic agents in this setting remains unclear.
Do thrombolytic agents improve survival to discharge in patients having a cardiac arrest?
Systematic Review
Do thrombolytic agents improve survival to discharge in patients having a cardiac arrest?
Current evidence for the use of thrombolytic agents during cardiac arrest is limited by small, poorly designed studies, despite some encouraging preliminary results.
Thrombolytics should not be used routinely in cardiac arrest; leaves open possible benefit pending larger, rigorous RCTs.
The prognosis of patients having a cardiac arrest is generally poor, with a few exceptions. Interventions that aim to improve outcome in cardiac arrest have proved to be disappointing. In particular, no drug has been reliably proved to increase survival to discharge after cardiac arrest. Given that coronary thrombosis in situ and pulmonary thromboembolism are implicated in a large proportion of patients with cardiac arrest, the use of thrombolytic agents has been suggested. Case reports and animal studies have shown favourable results, and have proposed plausible mechanisms to explain them. This is a review of the current literature focusing on the use of thrombolysis during cardiac arrest. A comprehensive literature search was carried out on Medline from 1966 to January 2006, Embase from 1988 to January 2006 and the Cochrane Library, using the Ovid interface. Six articles were selected for review. Although some results are encouraging, all the studies currently available are limited by size and flaws in design.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
D Pedley (2006) conducted a systematic review in cardiac arrest. thrombolytic agents was evaluated. Thrombolytic agents during cardiac arrest showed encouraging results across 6 reviewed articles, though current evidence is limited by small study sizes and design flaws.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: