ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Extracorporeal and Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Low-Flow Duration: Insights From a Nationwide Hospital-Based Registry Study in Japan (JAAM-OHCA Registry).
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. 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.
- Cerebral Oxygen Saturation Responsiveness During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation After Prolonged Ventricular Fibrillation: A Porcine Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Optimal Low-Flow Time of Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Favorable Neurological Outcomes: A Risk-Stratified Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Perioperative Cardiac Arrest in Noncardiac Surgery: A Nationwide Cohort Study in Japan.Anesthesiology open · 2026Article
- Expedited transfer pathways vs. standard care for adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal low-flow duration (LFD) for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) remains unclear. We evaluated the impact of LFD on neurological outcomes based on initial cardiac rhythms and compared trends between ECPR and CCPR.
methodsThis secondary analysis used data from a nationwide, prospective study of adult (≥18 years) nontraumatic patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation upon hospital arrival (June 2014-December 2019). LFD was defined as time from professional cardiopulmonary resuscitation initiation to ECPR initiation or return of spontaneous circulation/termination of resuscitation in CCPR. The primary outcome was 1-month survival with favorable neurological status (Cerebral Performance Category scale 1 or 2). Patients were stratified into 4 groups based on first documented cardiac rhythm (pre- or in-hospital).
resultsAmong 42 365 patients (1355 ECPR, 36 991 CCPR), longer LFD was associated with poorer neurological outcomes in patients with initial shockable rhythms, regardless of ECPR or CCPR use. The highest favorable outcome rates were observed in the Shockable-Shockable groups (ECPR: 16.0%; CCPR: 16.9%), with a clear decline in outcomes as LFD increased (both
conclusionsLonger LFD is associated with worse outcomes in patients with initial shockable rhythms. This association was not observed in nonshockable cases, although their prognosis was generally poor. Defining rhythm-specific LFD thresholds may guide ECPR use and improve outcomes.
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.