Abstract
This review discusses potential reasons why many recent large trials in advanced cardiac life support have failed to demonstrate a difference in outcomes and suggests some points for consideration in planning future trials. The ARREST trial, a small controlled trial studying the effect of intra-arrest extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO, or E-CPR) on survival and functional outcome in patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation cardiac arrest, was stopped after 30 patients for benefit. This stands in contrast to several recent trials enrolling up to several thousand patients and finding no difference. Three ways in which the ARREST trial approach differed from that of other recent trials, and how those differences may contribute to the possibility of detecting the benefit of an intervention, are discussed. Refining our ability to select patients with potential to benefit from an intervention, providing those interventions earlier, and tailoring the specifics of an intervention to the individual patient all may be important in design of cardiac arrest trials, as illustrated by the large effect seen in the ARREST trial.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
