ArticleResuscitation plus2026
External validation of ECPR prognostic models derived from pre-ECMO indicators in patients undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To externally validate previously published prognostic models developed exclusively from pre-extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) variables in a contemporary ECPR cohort. Methods: We conducted a bicenter retrospective external validation of four published pre-ECPR prognostic models (Lee, RESCUE-IHCA, CHIU-S1, and CHIU-S2) in adult patients treated with ECPR between January 2015 and December 2024. Model performance was evaluated for in-hospital survival and favorable neurological outcome (FNO; Cerebral Performance Category 1-2) in the overall cohort, in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA), and cardiac-origin cardiac arrest (Cardio_CA) subgroups. Discrimination (the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUROC), calibration, overall model fit (Brier score), and decision curve analysis (DCA) were assessed. For point-based CHIU scores, validation focused on observed outcome rates across predefined risk strata. Results: Among 214 patients, 79.0% (169/214) had IHCA; survival to discharge was 45.8% and FNO occurred in 24.8%. Discrimination for survival was modest across models (overall ECPR AUROC 0.608-0.709; IHCA 0.586-0.672; Cardio_CA 0.591-0.689) but was higher for FNO (overall ECPR 0.709-0.764; IHCA 0.696-0.744; Cardio_CA 0.698-0.718). The Lee model showed poor calibration with slopes far below 1, whereas RESCUE-IHCA model underestimated survival but demonstrated better calibration (slopes close to 1), higher overall accuracy (lower Brier scores) and broader clinical utility (wider net-benefit ranges in DCA). CHIU models provided limited risk separation between adjacent strata. Conclusions: In this external validation, pre-ECPR models showed modest performance, with better discrimination for neurological outcome than for survival. RESCUE-IHCA showed the most favorable overall performance. Future studies should develop and validate more robust, transportable tools.
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.