Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38256631›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2024

Improved Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ECPR) Outcomes Is Associated with a Restrictive Patient Selection Algorithm.

Benjamin Assouline, Nathalie Mentha, Hannah Wozniak, Viviane Donner, Carole Looyens, Laurent Suppan, Robert Larribau, Carlo Banfi, Karim Bendjelid, Raphaël Giraud

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Artificial intelligence in respiratory care.Frontiers in digital health · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Benjamin AssoulineIntensive Care Unit, Geneva University Hospitals, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.
Nathalie MenthaIntensive Care Unit, Geneva University Hospitals, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2945-1027
Hannah WozniakIntensive Care Unit, Geneva University Hospitals, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.
Viviane DonnerIntensive Care Unit, Geneva University Hospitals, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-2363-6744
Carole LooyensIntensive Care Unit, Geneva University Hospitals, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.
Laurent SuppanFaculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-6989-6421
Robert LarribauFaculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5200-4199
Carlo BanfiGeneva Hemodynamic Research Group, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1134-2068
Karim BendjelidIntensive Care Unit, Geneva University Hospitals, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7921-7207
Raphaël GiraudIntensive Care Unit, Geneva University Hospitals, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-5956-8643
University of Geneva · CHUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a leading cause of mortality. Despite decades of intensive research and several technological advancements, survival rates remain low. The integration of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has been recognized as a promising approach in refractory OHCA. However, evidence from recent randomized controlled trials yielded contradictory results, and the criteria for selecting eligible patients are still a subject of debate.

methodsThis study is a retrospective analysis of refractory OHCA patients treated with ECPR. All adult patients who received ECPR, according to the hospital algorithm, from 2013 to 2021 were included. Two different algorithms were used during this period. A "permissive" algorithm was used from 2013 to mid-2016. Subsequently, a revised algorithm, more "restrictive", based on international guidelines, was implemented from mid-2016 to 2021. Key differences between the two algorithms included reducing the no-flow time from less than three minutes to zero minutes (implying that the cardiac arrests must occur in the presence of a witness with immediate CPR initiation), reducing low-flow duration from 100 to 60 min, and lowering the age limit from 65 to 55 years. The aim of this study is to compare these two algorithms (permissive (1) and restrictive (2)) to determine if the use of a restrictive algorithm was associated with higher survival rates.

resultsA total of 48 patients were included in this study, with 23 treated under Algorithm 1 and 25 under Algorithm 2. A significant difference in survival rate was observed in favor of the restrictive algorithm (9% vs. 68%,

conclusionThe present study emphasizes that a stricter selection of OHCA patients improves survival rates in ECPR.

Indexed as

ECPRout-of-hospital cardiac arrestVA-ECMO

Identifiers

PMID38256631
PMCPMC10816028
OpenAlexW4390912942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.