ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2021
Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for refractory cardiac arrest: a scoping review.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Levosimendan Use on All-Cause Mortality in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Survivors After Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Analyzing willingness for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in refractory ventricular fibrillation.PloS one · 2023Article
- Serum SCUBE-1 Levels and Return of Spontaneous Circulation Following Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Adult Patients.Avicenna journal of medicine · 2022Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an emerging concept in cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Recent research has documented a significant improvement in favorable outcomes, notable survival to discharge, and neurologically intact survival.
objectivesThe present study undertakes a scoping review to summarize the available evidence by assessing the use of ECPR, compared with no ECPR or the standard of care, for adult patients who sustain cardiac arrest in any setting, in studies which record survival and neurologic outcomes.
methodsThis review followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Four online databases were used to identify papers published from database inception to July 12, 2020. We selected 23 observational studies from Asia, Europe, and North America that used survival to discharge or neurologically intact survival as a primary or secondary endpoint variable in patients with cardiac arrest refractory to standard treatment.
resultsTwenty-three observational studies were included in the review. Eleven studies were of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, 7 studies were of in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 5 studies included mixed populations. Ten studies reported long-term favorable neurological outcomes (ie, Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 - 2 at 3 months [n = 3], 6 months [n = 3], and 1 year [n = 4]), of which only 4 had statistical significance at 5% significance levels. Current knowledge is mostly drawn from single-center observations, with most of the evidence coming from case series and cohort studies, hence is prone to publication bias. No randomized control trials were included.
conclusionsThis scoping review highlights the need for high-quality studies to increase the level of evidence and reduce knowledge gaps to change the paradigm of care for patients with shock-refractory cardiac arrest.
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.