SynthesisBMC emergency medicine2024
Comparison of prognosis between extracorporeal CPR and conventional CPR for patients in cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Extra-corporeal-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation vs. conventional-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation: an in-depth look into short- and long-term neurological outcomes.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Age-Dependent Benefit of ECPR in OHCA: An Interaction Analysis.Chonnam medical journal · 2026Article
- The effect of initial rhythm on patient outcome in refractory cardiac arrest requiring extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A retrospective, multicentre registry cohort study.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Mid-term (30- to 90-day) neurological changes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest survivors receiving extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a nationwide retrospective study (the JAAM-OHCA registry).Resuscitation plus · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimCompared to the conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR), potential benefits of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for patients with cardiac arrest (CA) are still controversial. We aimed to determine whether ECPR can improve the prognosis of CA patients compared with CCPR.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from database's inception to July 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies that compared ECPR with CCPR in adults (aged ≥ 16 years) with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). This meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Two researchers independently reviewed the relevance of the study, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the included literature. The primary outcome was short-term (from hospital discharge to one month after cardiac arrest) and long-term (≥ 90 days after cardiac arrest) survival with favorable neurological status (defined as cerebral performance category scores 1 or 2). Secondary outcomes included survival at 1 months, 3-6 months, and 1 year after cardiac arrest.
resultsThe meta-analysis included 3 RCTs and 14 cohort studies involving 167,728 patients. We found that ECPR can significantly improve good neurological prognosis (RR 1.82, 95%CI 1.42-2.34, I
conclusionsThis meta-analysis indicated that ECPR had significantly better effects on good neurological prognosis and survival rate than CCPR, especially in patients with IHCA. However, more high-quality studies are needed to explore the role of ECPR in patients with OHCA.
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.