ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Impact of clinical variables on outcomes in refractory cardiac arrest patients undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Operational assumptions underlying extracorporeal resuscitation eligibility models.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the past two decades, extracorporeal resuscitation (ECPR) has been increasingly used in the management of refractory cardiac arrest (CA) patients. Decision algorithms have been used to guide the care such patients, but the effectiveness of such decision-making tools is not well described. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of survival with a good neurologic outcome of patients treated with ECPR meeting all criteria of a clinical decision-making tool for the initiation of ECPR to those for whom ECPR was implemented outside of the algorithm. Methods: All patients who underwent E-CPR between January 2014 and December 2021 at the Montreal Heart Institute were included in this retrospective analysis. We dichotomized the cohort according to adherence or non-adherence with the ECPR decision-making tool, which included the following criteria: age ≤65 years, initial shockable rhythm, no-flow time <5 min, serum lactate <13 mmol/L. Patients were included in the "IN" group when they met all criteria of the decision-making tool and in the "OUT" group when at least one criterion was not met. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was survival with intact neurological status at 30 days, defined by a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) Scale 1 and 2. Results: A total of 41 patients (IN group, Conclusion and relevance: Most patients supported with ECPR fell outside of the criteria encompassed in a clinical decision-making tool, which highlights the challenge of optimal selection of ECPR candidates. Survival rate with a good neurologic outcome did not differ between the IN and OUT groups. However, survival with favorable outcome decreased steadily after one deviation from the decision-making tool. More studies are needed to help select proper candidates with refractory CA patients for ECPR.
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.