ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2024
Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a comparison of two experimental approaches and systematic review of experimental models.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of systemic mild hypercapnia on brain function in a refractory cardiac arrest model treated with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Evaluation of systemic and cerebral hemodynamics after systematic and early extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in swine.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Effects of therapeutic hypothermia on brain function in a refractory cardiac arrest model treated with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Intensive care medicine experimental · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients requiring extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), there is a need for studies to assess the potential benefits of therapeutic interventions to improve survival and reduce hypoxic-ischemic brain injuries. However, conducting human studies may be challenging. This study aimed to describe two experimental models developed in our laboratory and to conduct a systematic review of existing animal models of ECPR reported in the literature.
resultsIn our experiments, pigs were subjected to 12 min (model 1) or 5 min (model 2) of untreated ventricular fibrillation, followed by 18 min (model 1) or 25 min (model 2) of conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Results showed severe distributive shock, decreased brain oxygen pressure and increased intracranial pressure, with model 1 displaying more pronounced brain perfusion impairment. A systematic review of 52 studies, mostly conducted on pigs, revealed heterogeneity in cardiac arrest induction methods, cardiopulmonary resuscitation strategies, and evaluated outcomes.
conclusionsThis review emphasizes the significant impact of no-flow and low-flow durations on brain injury severity following ECPR. However, the diversity in experimental models hinders direct comparisons, urging the standardization of ECPR models to enhance consistency and comparability across studies.
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.