ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2026
Mechanical versus manual chest compressions during ECPR in the catheterization laboratory.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiac arrest occurring in the catheterization laboratory (CathLab) carries a high risk of mortality, especially when effective circulation cannot be restored immediately. Although extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is increasingly used in this context, there is still limited evidence comparing different chest compression strategies. This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes associated with mechanical versus manual chest compression approaches during ECPR in the CathLab.
methodsWe performed a retrospective single-center observational cohort study from 2018 to 2025, including patients who experienced cardiac arrest in the CathLab and received ECPR. Patients were divided into two groups according to the chest compression strategy used during resuscitation: the mechanical chest compression group (mechanical CPR) and the manual chest compression group (manual CPR). The primary endpoint was low-flow time. Secondary endpoints included procedural characteristics and and clinical outcomes (survival to hospital discharge, favorable neurological outcome (CPC 1-2)).
resultsA total of 58 patients were included in the analysis, including 22 patients in the mechanical CPR group and 36 in the manual CPR group, with comparable baseline characteristics between groups. Low-flow duration was significantly shorter in the mechanical CPR group compared with the manual CPR group (34 [22-53] min vs. 41 [28-63] min, p = 0.024). No significant differences were observed between groups regarding return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) prior to cannulation (9.1% vs. 13.9%, p = 0.698), survival to ICU discharge (27.3% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.756), survival to hospital discharge (22.7% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.752), or favorable neurological outcome at discharge (22.7% vs. 13.9%, p = 0.481). Univariable analysis demonstrated that favorable neurological survival (CPC 1-2) was significantly associated with the presence of a shockable rhythm (90.0% vs. 47.9%, p = 0.017), shorter low-flow duration (35 [20-44] min vs. 42 [30-61] min, p = 0.012), shorter cannulation time (12 [7-13] min vs. 14 [11-18] min, p = 0.038), and ROSC prior to cannulation (40.0% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.013).
conclusionsIn patients with cardiac arrest undergoing ECPR in the CathLab, mechanical chest compressions were associated with shorter low-flow duration but were not associated with improved survival or neurological outcomes compared with manual CPR.
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.