ArticleResuscitation plus2026
Applying randomized control trial criteria to an ECPR cohort.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess how inclusion criteria from major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) apply within a cannulated ECPR cohort and to benchmark observed outcomes against published trial results. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study at a 1,000-bed tertiary medical center of adults who underwent ECPR for out of hospital cardiac arrest. Inclusion criteria from the ARREST, PRAGUE, and INCEPTION trials were retrospectively applied. Analyses were restricted to cannulated patients, with survival evaluated overall and stratified by trial eligibility, and descriptively compared with published RCT outcomes. Results: Sixty-six patients underwent ECPR, including 25 (38%) with a non-shockable initial rhythm. Overall survival to hospital discharge was 14% (9/66; 95% CI 6.4-24.3%), with favorable neurological outcome in 5/9 survivors. Survival was numerically higher among patients meeting trial inclusion criteria, but differences were not statistically significant. Survival was comparable to PRAGUE and INCEPTION and lower than ARREST. Conclusions: Within this program level, cannulated ECPR cohort, RCT-derived inclusion criteria did not clearly distinguish survivors from non-survivors, and survival occurred among patients not meeting one or more trial eligibility thresholds. Rigid application of trial criteria at the point of cannulation may therefore exclude some patients with potential for meaningful recovery.
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.