Conservative or liberal oxygen therapy in adults after cardiac arrest: An individual-level patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

2020-12

Young, Paul J

Bailey, Michael

Bellomo, Rinaldo

Bernard, Stephen

Bray, Janet

Jakkula, Pekka

Kuisma, Markku

Mackle, Diane

Martin, Daniel

Nolan, Jerry P

Panwar, Rakshit

Reinikainen, Matti

Skrifvars, Markus B

Thomas, Matt

Cardiac arrest

Hyperoxaemia

Hypoxaemia

Hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy

Individual patient data meta-analysis

Oxygen therapy

Randomised controlled trial

Journal Article

10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.09.036

The effect of conservative versus liberal oxygen therapy on mortality rates in post cardiac arrest patients is uncertain. We undertook an individual patient data meta-analysis of patients randomised in clinical trials to conservative or liberal oxygen therapy after a cardiac arrest. The primary end point was mortality at last follow-up. Individual level patient data were obtained from seven randomised clinical trials with a total of 429 trial participants included. Four trials enrolled patients in the pre-hospital period. Of these, two provided protocol-directed oxygen therapy for 60 min, one provided it until the patient was handed over to the emergency department staff, and one provided it for a total of 72 h or until the patient was extubated. Three trials enrolled patients after intensive care unit (ICU) admission and generally continued protocolised oxygen therapy for a longer period, often until ICU discharge. A total of 90 of 221 patients (40.7%) assigned to conservative oxygen therapy and 103 of 206 patients (50%) assigned to liberal oxygen therapy had died by this last point of follow-up; absolute difference; odds ratio (OR) adjusted for study only; 0.67; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.99; P = 0.045; adjusted OR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.96; P = 0.04. Conservative oxygen therapy was associated with a statistically significant reduction in mortality at last follow-up compared to liberal oxygen therapy but the certainty of available evidence was low or very low due to bias, imprecision, and indirectness. CRD42019138931.

link

Resuscitation 2020; 157: 15-22

Resuscitation