Observational studyScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2023
The effect of restrictive versus liberal selection criteria on survival in ECPR: a retrospective analysis of a multi-regional dataset.
Observational study in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 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
- Assessing accessibility to the extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation pathway for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in London.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Optimizing Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Candidate Selection in out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Machine-Learning Individualized Treatment Effect Approach Versus Rule-Based Criteria.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Cost effectiveness of pre-hospital extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - An analysis of the PRECARE study.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- 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
- Article
- Extracorporeal CPR Performance Metrics in Adult In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Stepwise and Evidence-Based Appraisal of the VA-ECMO Implementation Process.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Assess, improve, detect, guide: a narrative review and proposal for a standardized protocol for prehospital transesophageal echocardiography during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.The ultrasound journal · 2025Review
- Database and geospatial mapping study of those eligible for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the Thames Valley Region, England.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Case Report: Effective extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitationin prolonged cardiac arrest.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Establishing an Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Program.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an established rescue therapy for both out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). However, there remains significant heterogeneity in populations and outcomes across different studies. The primary aim of this study was to compare commonly used selection criteria and their effect on survival and utilisation in an Australian ECPR cohort.
methodsWe performed a retrospective, observational study of three established ECPR centres in Australia, including cases from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020 to establish the baseline cohort. We applied five commonly used ECPR selection criteria, ranging from restrictive to liberal.
resultsThe baseline cohort included 199 ECPR cases: 95 OHCA and 104 IHCA patients. Survival to hospital discharge was 20% for OHCA and 41.4% for IHCA. For OHCA patients, strictly applying the most restrictive criteria would have resulted in the highest survival rate 7/16 (43.8%) compared to the most liberal criteria 16/73 (21.9%). However, only 16/95 (16.8%) in our cohort strictly met the most restrictive criteria versus 73/95 (76.8%) with the most liberal criteria. Similarly, in IHCA, the most restrictive criteria would have resulted in a higher survival rate in eligible patients 10/15 (66.7%) compared to 27/59 (45.8%) with the most liberal criteria. With all criteria a large portion of survivors in IHCA would not have been eligible for ECMO if strictly applying criteria, 33/43 (77%) with restrictive and 16/43 (37%) with the most liberal criteria.
conclusionsAdherence to different selection criteria impacts both the ECPR survival rate and the total number of survivors. Commonly used selection criteria may be unsuitable to select IHCA ECPR patients.
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.