ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Outcomes and implications of patients included vs excluded for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation after initial activation.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study is to describe the implementation of a new Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ECPR) program in Cleveland, Ohio, USA. We also provide a novel comparison of outcomes between patients cannulated vs excluded from cannulation for ECPR after initial field activation. Methods: A prospective observational study of ECPR activations between September 2021 and February 2025. Patients meeting initial eligibility criteria for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)-namely based on age, bystander-CPR, and initial shockable rhythm-were transported to the emergency department where the ECPR team completed cannulation based on further biochemical criteria. Medical records were used to collect data after every ECPR activation. Results: 45 ECPR activations were identified. Among these, 13 patients were cannulated for ECMO, while 32 patients did not meet cannulation criteria. Among those cannulated, 10 of 13 (76.9 %) survived to hospital discharge vs 5 of 32 (15.6 %) who did not receive ECMO (p < 0.001). Among patients who underwent ECPR, there was no incidence of brain death or significant access site bleeding complications Conclusion: The implementation of ECPR with strict eligibility criteria resulted in a small number of cannulations but a high survival rate. Strict criteria may lead to missed opportunities for successful ECPR and occasionally trigger activation of the ECPR team without ultimately performing cannulation. As institutions develop their ECPR programs, they should carefully consider eligibility criteria in order to balance survival rate and case volume.
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.