ReviewCritical care (London, England)2026
Organ donation after ECPR: ethical challenges and clinical implications.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to: Organ donation after ECPR: ethical challenges and clinical implications.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor: "Organ donation after ECPR: ethical challenges and clinical implications".Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) offers a life-saving option for select patients with refractory cardiac arrest, yet a substantial proportion suffer devastating neurological injury and die despite extracorporeal support. In this context, organ donation may emerge as a potential downstream pathway, introducing complex ethical tensions at the intersection of life-sustaining treatment, end-of-life care, and organ preservation. This narrative review examines the ethical challenges associated with organ donation following ECPR, with particular attention to the transition from resuscitative intent to donation-oriented care. We discuss the clinical and ethical challenges of ECPR programs related to patient autonomy, informed consent, conflicts of interest, and equity of access in both adult and paediatric populations. Building on core principles of biomedical ethics, we propose a structured ethical model to guide clinicians and institutions navigating these scenarios. Central elements include strict separation between resuscitative and donation-related decision-making, transparent prognostication, robust safeguards around treatment intent, and early integration of ethics consultation and structured communication processes. We extend the prior evidence by offering ECPR-specific considerations, including concrete governance triggers, bedside tools, the integration of paediatric perspectives, and the translation of ethical principles into operational guidance. By defining clear ethical boundaries and governance mechanisms, this review aims to support the responsible integration of organ donation pathways following ECPR, while preserving public trust and reaffirming the primacy of patient-centred care.
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.