ArticleCirculation reports2025
Association Between Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Prognosis in the Short and Long Term in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Refractory Cardiac Arrest.
Article in Circulation reports, 2025. 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.
- Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Between Those With and Without Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fatty Liver Disease (MAFLD).Circulation reports · 2026Article
- STEAP4 drives immune dysregulation in myocardial infarction-NSCLC comorbidity.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is expected to improve outcomes in patients with cardiac arrest (CA), its impact on prognosis in acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients complicated by CA remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the short- and long-term effects of ECPR on prognosis in these patients. Methods and Results: This single-center, retrospective study analyzed consecutive MI patients. Patients were classified into 3 groups: CA requiring ECPR (ECPR group); CA achieving return of spontaneous circulation without ECPR (CCPR group); and without CA (non-CA group). The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality, while long-term all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and major adverse cardiovascular events were evaluated among discharged patients. Of the 625 patients analyzed, 57 were in the ECPR group, 104 in the CCPR group, and 464 in the non-CA group. Multivariable analysis revealed that the ECPR group had a significantly higher prevalence of 30-day mortality than the CCPR group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 3.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-7.13) and the non-CA group (HR 43.48; 95% CI 19.70-95.92). However, there were no significant differences in long-term outcomes among the 3 groups. Conclusions: The 30-day mortality was worse in the ECPR group than in the CCPR or non-CA groups. In contrast, the long-term prognosis was comparable among discharged patients, regardless of the presence of CA or the need for ECPR.
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.