Thrombolytic therapy in cardiac arrest caused by cardiac etiologies or presumed pulmonary embolism: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

BACKGROUND: Many cardiac arrest cases are encountered annually worldwide, with poor survival. The use of systemic thrombolysis during cardiopulmonary resuscitation for the treatment of cardiac arrest remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of systemic thrombolysis in patients with cardiac arrest due to presumed or confirmed pulmonary embolism or cardiac etiology. METHODS: We searched the PubMed and Cochrane databases from inception through April 2021 to identify relevant randomized controlled trials and observational studies. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were survival to hospital discharge and reported bleeding, respectively. Sensitivity analysis was performed on the basis of study design and etiology of cardiac arrest. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included, with 4696 patients (1178 patients received systemic thrombolysis, and 3518 patients received traditional therapy). There was a higher rate of survival to hospital discharge in patients who received systemic thrombolysis versus no systemic thrombolysis (risk ratio [RR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95‐1.91). There were also higher rates of survival at 24 hours (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.97‐1.59) and hospital admission (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04‐2.24), and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.05‐1.71) with the use of systemic thrombolysis. Impacts on survival to discharge and survival at 24 hours were not statistically significant. Patients receiving systemic thrombolysis had a 65% increase in bleeding events compared with no systemic thrombolysis (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.20‐2.27). CONCLUSION: Systemic thrombolysis in cardiac arrest did not improve survival to hospital discharge and led to more bleeding events. However, it increased the rates of hospital admission and ROSC achievement.