ArticleCureus2025
Influence of Public Assistance on Patients Receiving Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation After Cardiac Arrest in Japan: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective This study aimed to evaluate the influence of public assistance on patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) who received extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in Japan. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the SAVE-J II study, a retrospective, multicenter registry study involving 36 participating institutions in Japan. Patients with cardiac arrest who received ECPR were divided into two groups, depending on whether or not they had received public assistance. The primary outcome was 30-day survival. Secondary outcomes were as follows: 30-day favorable neurological outcomes (Cerebral Performance Category scores 1-2); survival at discharge; favorable neurological outcome at discharge; number of Intensive Care Unit (ICU), hospital, ventilator, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) days; medical expenses; proportion of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); target temperature management (TTM); mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device use; and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy (WLST). Results Of the 2,157 patients registered in the SAVE-J II study, 1,885 were enrolled in this study; 99 patients (5.3%) received public assistance, and 1,786 patients (94.7%) did not. Multivariable logistic regression analysis did not show a significant difference in 30-day survival (OR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.77-1.95; p = 0.40). Except for the use of MCS devices, there were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. Conclusion The use of public assistance was not associated with clinical outcomes or treatment options, except for MCS devices, among OHCA patients receiving ECPR. These results may imply that clinicians do not need to hesitate in implementing ECPR for OHCA patients receiving public assistance. Further studies on the association between socioeconomic status and ECPR are warranted.
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.