ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The race against time.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of a clinical decision protocol on survival and neurological outcome following extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Journal of intensive care · 2026Article
- Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with mechanical chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A porcine model study.JTCVS open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is increasingly used due to its beneficial outcomes and results compared to conventional CPR. Cardiac arrests can be categorized depending on location: in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Despite this distinction, studies comparing the two are scarce, especially in comparing outcomes after ECPR. This study compared patient characteristics, cardiac arrest characteristics, and outcomes. Methods: Between 2016 and 2022, patients who underwent ECPR for cardiac arrest at our institution were retrospectively analyzed, depending on the arrest location: IHCA and OHCA. We compared periprocedural characteristics and used multinomial regression analysis to indicate parameters contributing to a favorable outcome. Results: A total of n = 157 patients (100%) were analyzed (OHCA = 91; IHCA = 66). Upon admission, OHCA patients were younger (53.2 ± 12.4 vs. 59.2 ± 12.6 years) and predominantly male (91.1% vs. 66.7%, p=<0.001). The low-flow time was significantly shorter in IHCA patients (41.1 ± 27.4 mins) compared to OHCA (63.6 ± 25.1 mins). Despite this significant difference, in-hospital mortality was not significantly different in both groups (IHCA = 72.7% vs. OHCA = 76.9%, p = 0.31). Both groups' survival-to-discharge factors were CPR duration, low flow time, and lactate values upon ECMO initiation. Conclusion: Survival-to-discharge for ECPR in IHCA and OHCA was around 25%, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two cohorts. Factors predicting survival were lower lactate levels before cannulation and lower low-flow time. As such, OHCA patients seem to tolerate longer low-flow times and thus metabolic impairments compared to IHCA patients and may be considered for ECMO cannulation on a broader time span than IHCA.
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.