ReviewJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2021
Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults with shock-refractory cardiac arrest.
Review in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest transported to an ECMO centre compared with transport to non-ECMO centres.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2022Article
- Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adults with shock-refractory cardiac arrest.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Review
- Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for refractory cardiac arrest: a scoping review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVeno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation has increasingly emerged as a feasible treatment to mitigate the progressive multiorgan dysfunction that occurs during cardiac arrest, in support of further resuscitation efforts.
objectivesBecause the recent systematic review commissioned in 2018 by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Advanced Life Support task did not include studies without a control group, our objective was to conduct a review incorporating these studies to increase available evidence supporting the use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for cardiac arrest patients, while waiting for high-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsMEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index (Web of Science) were searched for eligible studies from database inception to July 20, 2020. The population of interest was adult patients who had suffered cardiac arrest in any setting. We included all cohort studies with 1 exposure/1 group and descriptive studies (ie, case series studies). We excluded RCTs, non-RCTs, and observational analytic studies with a control group. Outcomes included short-term survival and favorable neurological outcome. Short-term outcomes (ie, hospital discharge, 30 days, and 1 month) were combined into a single category.
resultsOur searches of databases and other sources yielded a total of 4302 citations. Sixty-two eligible studies were included (including a combined total of 3638 participants). Six studies were of in-hospital cardiac arrest, 34 studies were of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and 22 studies included both in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Seven hundred and sixty-eight patients of 3352 (23%) had short-term survival; whereas, 602 of 3366 (18%) survived with favorable neurological outcome, defined as a cerebral performance category score of 1 or 2.
conclusionsCurrent clinical evidence is mostly drawn from observational studies, with their potential for confounding selection bias. Although studies without controls cannot supplant case-control or cohort studies, several ECPR studies without a control group show successful resuscitation with impressive results that may provide valuable information to inform a comparison.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.