Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/77197
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWachira Wongtanasarasinen_US
dc.contributor.authorKaran Srisurapanonten_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-16T07:24:35Z-
dc.date.available2022-10-16T07:24:35Z-
dc.date.issued2021-01-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn24522473en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85115690583en_US
dc.identifier.other10.4103/2452-2473.301917en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85115690583&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/77197-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: Because the benefits of bicarbonate therapy remain unclear, it is not routinely recommended for the cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) given to individuals with cardiac arrest (CA). This study aims to evaluate the clinical benefits of bicarbonate therapy in adults with CA. METHODS: Without any language restriction, we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL from the inception until April 30, 2020. We performed hand-search to identify the relevant trials included in previous meta-analyses. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bicarbonate and placebo treatment in adults with CA. Two authors independently assessed the trial risk of bias. The primary outcome was the survival to hospital admission. The secondary outcomes included the return of spontaneous circulation, the survival to hospital discharge, and the neurological outcome at discharge. We calculated the odds ratios of those outcomes using the Mantel-Haenszel model and assessed the heterogeneity using the I 2 statistic. RESULTS: Our searches found 649 unduplicated studies. Of these, three RCTs involving 1344 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The trial risk of bias ranged between fair and poor, mainly due to no blindness of outcome assessment and the selective reports of outcomes. Bicarbonate therapy showed no significant improvement in the survival to hospital admission (odds ratio [OR] 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-1.25). Subgroup analysis in those receiving prolonged CPR showed a similar result (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.10-8.01). No study reported the predefined secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: For both acute and prolonged CPR, bicarbonate therapy might not show benefit to improve the rate of survival to hospital admission in adults with cardiac arrest.en_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleEfficacy of bicarbonate therapy for adults with cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trialsen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleTurkish Journal of Emergency Medicineen_US
article.volume21en_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.