Acute cardiac care & resuscitation
Temporary mechanical circulatory support after return of spontaneous circulation following cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Pooled result · Survival at longest follow-up (patients with ROSC)Result — go to the resultRelative risk 1.10 95 % CI 0.94–1.29Authors' conclusion
Routine use of temporary MCS does not improve survival in unselected cardiac arrest patients with AMI-CS and increased complication rates.
Study context
- Population
- AMI-CS patients who achieved return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after in- or out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
- Participants
- 762 patients · 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
- Comparison
- Temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) vs standard care after ROSC
- Outcome
- Survival
- Follow-up
- Longest
Methodological detailsBayesian meta-analysis
- Bayesian meta-analysis
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Survival at longest follow-up (patients with ROSC)
Relative risk
1.10
95 % CI 0.94–1.29
P = 0.23
By group
MCS vs Standard care
RR 1.10 (95 % CI 0.94–1.29); P = 0.23
- Bayesian RR
- 1.13 (95 % CrI 0.90-1.44)
- Bayesian posterior probability of any survival benefit (absolute risk difference > 0 %)
- 88 %
- Bayesian probability of a clinically relevant benefit (>5 %)
- 56 %
Further pooled results
%
| Outcome | MCS | Standard care | RR (95 % CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Survival, no or cardiac arrest duration < 10 min (subgroup) | 56 | 45 | 1.25 (1.06–1.47) | P = 0.007 | |
| 0.512Relative risk (log scale) |
Safety
Device-related complications
- MCS associated with increased device-related complications
Original publication
Temporary mechanical circulatory support after return of spontaneous circulation following cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation. Published 11 November 2025. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it