ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Improving quality and outcomes of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in refractory cardiac arrest: the Phoenix ECPR project.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- British societies guideline on the management of emergencies in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.Intensive care medicine · 2025Guideline
- Impact of a clinical decision protocol on survival and neurological outcome following extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Journal of intensive care · 2026Article
- Recommendations in Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Post Resuscitation Care Via An International, Modified Delphi Approach.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Review
- Navigating the Evidence Gap: Expert Consensus as a Bridge to Research in Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Adults.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Application Results of an Extracorporeal Therapy Protocol in Cardiorespiratory Arrest: A Historical Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurvival for cardiac arrest remains poor, and the use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has been suggested as a potential therapy to improve outcomes. Harefield Hospital has been performing ECPR for over a decade; however outcomes have been historically poor.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed of all ECPR cases at Harefield Hospital between April 2018 and April 2023. A new structured system including a systematic screening process, strict exclusion criteria, assessment of resuscitation adequacy through physiological stop criteria, drilled and standardised cannulation process, post-resuscitation care and neuroprognostication was rolled out on 1 April 2023. A comparison of ECPR performed pre and post was undertaken.
resultsWith the institution of the new system, 13 patients were treated with ECPR over 1 year; of which nine (69.2%) survived with good neurological outcomes at 6 months. In the preceding 3 years, there had been 22 cases; of which, two survived (9.1%). This was a statistically significant higher survival with HR of 4.56 (CI 2.1, 10.2, p<0.05).The average length of hospital stay in the new system was 61.3 days; of which, 32.4 days were in the intensive care unit.
conclusionsThis study shows that it is possible to significantly improve outcomes in ECPR in a single centre by introducing into standard practice, a high-quality bundle of care.
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.