ArticleAdvances in simulation (London, England)2026
Evaluating the impact of implementing an ECPR protocol on prehospital resuscitation quality: a randomized controlled simulation study.
Article in Advances in simulation (London, England), 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ECPR) is increasingly considered for prehospital cardiac arrest management; however, its impact on resuscitation performance remains unclear. This study aimed to determine whether integrating an ECPR protocol into prehospital cardiac arrest care affects the quality of resuscitation compared to application of the standard Advanced Life Support (ALS) protocol.
methodsA randomized controlled simulation study was conducted at the University Hospital Leuven in Belgium using standardized pre-hospital cardiac arrest scenarios. Participants, who were physicians functioning as part of resuscitation teams, were randomized into intervention and control groups. The study included a pre- and post-intervention phase. In the pre-phase, all participants followed the standard ALS protocol. Only the intervention group received training in the additional ECPR protocol between the phases. In the post-phase, the intervention group combined this protocol with standard ALS, whereas the control group continued with ALS alone. The primary outcome was overall resuscitation quality, which was assessed using the modified Peltonen score. The secondary outcomes included occurrence and timing of critical resuscitation actions.
resultsA total of 40 physicians participated in the study. Resuscitation quality was not affected by the ECPR protocol; the modified Peltonen score showed no difference in the pre-post change between the groups (0.02, CI: -0.15; 0.19, p = 0.83). However, secondary outcomes showed delayed actions related to the identification and management of the presumed cause of cardiac arrest in the intervention group, such as significantly later verbal suggestions to initiate causal treatments including PCI or thrombolysis.
conclusionsIn this simulation study, combining a prehospital ECPR protocol with standard ALS resulted in resuscitation performance comparable to ALS alone. Nonetheless, the protocol was associated with delayed diagnostic and therapeutic actions concerning the reversible causes of cardiac arrest, highlighting the need for ECPR training that integrates diagnostic and therapeutic vigilance with procedural execution.
trial registrationClinical Trial Center UZ Leuven, S65846 - September 2021.
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.