SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
Extra-corporeal-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation vs. conventional-cardiopulmonary-resuscitation: an in-depth look into short- and long-term neurological outcomes.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Refractory Cardiac Arrest: Current Evidence, Clinical Pathways and Future Directions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) is a new approach for cardiac arrest management and is regarded as a possible alternative for conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (cCPR).
aimOur systematic review and meta-analysis seek to compare outcomes of cCPR versus eCPR in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
methodsPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in this study and the questionnaire utilized the PICO (Patient, Intervention, Control, Outcome) framework. A search strategy using MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms was made from which Pubmed/Medline, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception till March 2024 to reveal all relevant studies. Conference proceedings, www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov , and bibliometrics of published articles were also searched for gray literature.
resultsCompared with conventional CPR (cCPR), extracorporeal CPR (eCPR) was associated with higher odds of favorable neurological outcome at discharge (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.28-5.32; p = 0.008; I²=82%), 3-months (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.63-6.63; p = 0.0009; I²=46%), and 6-months (OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.24-3.12; p = 0.004; I²=12%). The increase at 1-month was not significant (OR 2.15, 95% CI 0.87-5.34; p = 0.10; I²=90%). eCPR also improved survival-to-discharge (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.17-2.92; p = 0.009; I²=73%).
conclusioneCPR in the management of OHCA patients has more favorable neurological and survival outcomes as compared to cCPR.
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.