Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Expedited transfer does not reduce mortality in out-of-hospital cardiac arrestExpedited Transfer Does Not Improve Survival in Cardiac Arrest

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider that expedited transfer does not reduce mortality or improve neurological outcomes in OHCA; routine use is not supported.

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating expedited transfer versus standard care in adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). The analysis included 1,303 patients across prehospital and hospital settings. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest reported follow-up; secondary outcomes included neurological recovery, bleeding, mechanical circulatory support, time to return of spontaneous circulation, and length of hospital stay.

The pooled results showed that expedited transfer did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90–1.04) nor improve favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81–1.18). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed for secondary outcomes. The authors note that no significant interaction was found according to expedited transfer pathway type (P for subgroup difference = 0.46).

Limitations were not reported in the abstract. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE, but specific levels were not reported. Adverse events were not reported.

For clinicians, current randomized evidence does not support routine expedited transfer as a standard strategy for adults with OHCA. Individualized decisions may still be appropriate, but routine adoption is not supported by these data.

How this fits prior evidence

This meta-analysis confirms and extends prior coverage on cardiac arrest interventions. It aligns with the finding that mechanical CPR does not show statistically significant differences from manual CPR for chest injuries, reinforcing a pattern of neutral results for certain prehospital interventions. It also contrasts with the triple therapy (vasopressin, steroids, epinephrine) that improved ROSC in in-hospital arrest, though that benefit did not extend to survival or neurological outcomes. Here, expedited transfer showed no benefit on mortality or neurological outcome, adding to the evidence that some interventions may not improve key patient-centered outcomes.

Researchers looked at data from 1,303 adults who experienced a cardiac arrest outside of a hospital. They compared two different ways of handling these emergencies: standard care and an expedited transfer process designed to move patients more quickly to a hospital setting.

The results showed that the faster transfer method did not significantly reduce the overall number of deaths. Additionally, the study found no improvement in neurological recovery for patients who were moved more quickly. Other factors, such as the amount of bleeding or the length of time spent in the hospital, also showed no significant differences between the two groups.

Because this was a meta-analysis of randomized trials, it provides a clear look at how these methods compare. However, the results suggest that moving patients faster is not currently supported as a standard strategy to improve outcomes for cardiac arrest victims. Patients and families should discuss current emergency protocols with medical professionals.

What this means for you:
Current evidence does not show that expedited transfer improves survival or recovery for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Common questions

Does moving a patient faster after a heart attack help them survive?

The study of 1,303 adults found that an expedited transfer did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality. This means that moving the patient more quickly to a hospital did not result in a higher survival rate compared to standard care.

Does faster transport improve brain function after cardiac arrest?

The data showed that expedited transfer did not improve favorable neurological outcomes at the time of hospital discharge. Patients moved quickly did not show better recovery of brain function than those under standard care.

Are there any other differences between fast and standard transport?

The study found no statistically significant differences in several secondary areas, including the amount of bleeding, the use of mechanical circulatory support, the time to return of circulation, or the total length of hospital stay.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedAug 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BackgroundIn adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), the clinical benefit of expedited transfer compared with standard resuscitation pathways remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate randomized controlled trial evidence on the effects of expedited transfer on survival and neurological outcomes.MethodsPubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception to 22 February 2026. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing expedited transfer with standard care in adults with prehospital OHCA. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest reported follow-up; secondary outcomes included neurological recovery, bleeding, mechanical circulatory support, time to return of spontaneous circulation, and length of hospital stay. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed; risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2, certainty of evidence using GRADE. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to clinical pathway type, comparing post-ROSC transfer to cardiac arrest centers with intra-arrest transport pathways for refractory OHCA.ResultsFour randomized controlled trials involving 1,303 patients were included. Compared with standard care, expedited transfer did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality at the longest reported follow-up (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.90–1.04) or improve favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.81–1.18). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed for the remaining secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analysis. Subgroup analysis showed no significant interaction according to expedited transfer pathway type (P for subgroup difference = 0.46).ConclusionCurrent randomized evidence does not support routine expedited transfer as a standard strategy for adults with OHCA.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.