ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Evaluation of systemic and cerebral hemodynamics after systematic and early extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in swine.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2026. 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.
- The impact of head and thorax elevation on respiratory mechanics during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a multi-model study.Resuscitation plus · 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: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is thought to be efficient when performed promptly after cardiac arrest. However, its neurological benefit remains questionable if applied very early and systematically. Accordingly, we sought to compare systemic and cerebral hemodynamics when ECPR was implemented systematically compared to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) with epinephrine. Material and methods: Following 5 min of untreated ventricular fibrillation, pigs were randomly submitted to CCPR with epinephrine or crystalloid-primed ECPR after either a 10- or 30-min low-flow (4 groups: CCPR 10', ECPR 10', CCPR 30' and ECPR 30'. Defibrillations were then delivered until the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Swine were followed 240 min from cardiopulmonary onset. Results: Six pigs were included in each group. Survival rate was higher in CCPR 10' group vs ECPR 10' (6/6 vs 2/6; Conclusions: The early and systemic implementation of ECPR after either a 10- or 30-min low-flow was associated with impaired cerebral and systemic hemodynamics after ROSC, as compared to CCPR with epinephrine.
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.