SynthesisScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2021
The impact of selection criteria and study design on reported survival outcomes in extracorporeal oxygenation cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR): a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modelling eCPR eligibility after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a 10-year retrospective temporospatial analysis from a mixed urban-rural region in Germany.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- From arrest to circuit: Mapping twenty years of progress and pitfalls in ECPR implementation, patient selection, and initiation timing☆.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2026Review
- Outcomes and implications of patients included vs excluded for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation after initial activation.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- The Pre-ECPR score for predicting favorable neurological outcomes after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: protocol for external validation in the Prague OHCA trial cohort.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Creatine Kinase as a Prognostic Factor for Mortality in Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Database and geospatial mapping study of those eligible for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the Thames Valley Region, England.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- The impact of injuries at the time of cardiac arrest on the prognosis of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Implementing enhanced extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for CPR (ECPR) in the emergency department.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus conventional CPR in cardiac arrest: be aware of the temporal selection bias.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- Benefits, key protocol components, and considerations for successful implementation of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a review of the recent literature.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Potential role for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) during in-hospital cardiac arrest in Australia: A nested cohort study.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2023Article
- Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: time-dependent propensity score-sequential matching analysis from a nationwide population-based registry.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Article
- Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults and children: A review of literature, published guidelines and pediatric single-center program building experience.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during cardiac arrest (ECPR) has increased exponentially. However, reported outcomes vary considerably due to differing study designs and selection criteria. This review assessed the impact of pre-defined selection criteria on ECPR survival.
methodsSystematic review applying PRISMA guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews for RCTs and observational studies published from January 2000 to June 2021. Adult patients (> 12 years) receiving ECPR were included. Two investigators reviewed and extracted data on study design, number and type of inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Outcomes included overall and neurologically favourable survival. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed.
results67 studies were included: 14 prospective and 53 retrospective. No RCTs were identified at time of search. The number of inclusion criteria to select ECPR patients (p = 0.292) and study design (p = 0.962) was not associated with higher favourable neurological survival. However, amongst prospective studies, increased number of inclusion criteria was associated with improved outcomes in both OHCA and IHCA cohorts. (β = 0.12, p = 0.026) and arrest to ECMO flow time was predictive of survival. (β = -0.023, p < 0.001).
conclusionsProspective studies showed number of selection criteria and, in particular, arrest to ECMO time were associated with significant improved survival. Well-designed prospective studies assessing the relative importance of criteria as well as larger efficacy studies are required to ensure appropriate application of what is a costly intervention.
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.