ArticleCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2024
Long-term outcomes of patients who received extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) following in-hospital cardiac arrest: Analysis of EXCEL registry data.
Article in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Incidence and impact of loss of pulsatility on outcomes after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation - A retrospective cohort study.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest: a comparative cohort study from the first ECPR program in Brazil.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Functional Outcome and Independence Among In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Patients in South India: A Prospective Longitudinal Study.Nursing research and practice · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To describe the six-month functional outcomes of patients who received extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) following in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in Australia. Design: Secondary analysis of EXCEL registry data. Setting: EXCEL is a high-quality, prospective, binational registry including adult patients who receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in Australia and New Zealand. Participants: Patients reported to the EXCEL registry who received ECPR following IHCA and had the six-month outcome data available were included. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was functional outcome at six months measured using the modified Rankin scale (mRS). The secondary outcomes included mortality, disability, health status, and complications. Results: Between 15th February 2019 and 31st August 2022, 113/1251 (9.0%) patients in the registry received ECPR following IHCA (mean age 50.7 ± 13.7 years; 79/113 (69.9%) male; 74/113 (65.5%) non-shockable rhythm). At 6 months, 37/113 (32.7%) patients were alive, most (27/34 [79.4%]) with a good functional outcome (mRS 0-3). Patients had increased disability [WHODAS % Score 25.58 ± 23.39% vs 6.45 ± 12.32%; mean difference (MD) [95% (confidence interval) CI] -19.13 (-28.49 to -9.77); Conclusion: One in three patients who received ECPR following IHCA were alive at six months and most had a good functional outcome. However, survivors reported higher levels of disability and a worse health status at six months compared with the baseline and ongoing complications were common.
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.