Key Elements of a Successful ECPR Program

BackgroundThe potential benefit of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) compared to conventional CPR (CCPR) for patients with refractory cardiac arrest (CA) remains unclear.MethodsThis study is a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of CA patients, which includes all consecutive adult patients admitted to the Department of Intensive Care after CA between January 2012 and December 2017. The decision to initiate ECPR was made by the attending physician and ECPR performed by the ECPR team, which is composed of ICU physicians. A propensity score was derived using a logistic regression model, including characteristics that varied between groups with a p < 0.10 and were potentially related to outcome. Primary outcomes were survival to ICU discharge and favorable 3-month neurologic outcome, assessed by a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score of 1–2.ResultsFrom a total of 635 patients with CA during the study period (ECPR, n = 112), 80 ECPR patients were matched to 80 CCPR patients. The time from arrest to termination of CPR (i.e., return of spontaneous circulation [ROSC], extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO] initiation, or death) was 54 ± 22 and 54 ± 19 min in the ECPR and CCPR groups, respectively. ROSC rates were 77/80 (96%) for ECPR and 30/80 (38%) for CCPR (p < 0.001). Survival to ICU discharge was 18/80 (23%) vs. 14/80 (18%) in the ECPR and CCPR groups, respectively (p = 0.42). At 3 months, 17/80 (21%) ECPR patients and 9/80 (11%) CCPR patients had a favorable outcome (p = 0.11). Cox regression analysis stratified by matched pairs showed a significantly higher neurologic outcome rate in the ECPR group than in the CCPR group (log-rank test p = 0.003).ConclusionsECPR after CA may be associated with improved long-term neurological outcome.

Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: Prehospital or In-Hospital Cannulation?

trauma T he American Heart Association Resuscitation Science Symposium (ReSS) was held virtually from November 13 to 15, 2021. This report summarizes ReSS programming, including awards, special sessions, and workshops and scientific content organized by topic (ie, intra-arrest and postarrest care) and plenary session. Subsequent sections include special circumstances of arrest, survivorship, and new developments in mechanical circulatory support. Lastly, selected abstracts and laboratory science are summarized before a concluding year in review.

Challenges in the development and implementation of a healthcare system based extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) program for the treatment of out of hospital cardiac arrest

Objective: This systematic review compares survival with favorable neurological outcomes following extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) versus conventional CPR (CCPR) in adults with refractory cardiac arrest.Methods: We conducted a systematic search of major databases for randomized and observational studies comparing ECPR to CCPR. The primary outcome was survival with a favorable neurological outcome, defined as a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) of 1 or 2.Results: Eight studies involving 1,676 patients were included. The pooled analysis demonstrated that ECPR was associated with a 21.2 % rate of favorable neurological outcome compared to 16.7 % with CCPR. The combined relative risk (RR) was 1.27 (95 % CI 1.04–1.56), indicating a statistically significant 27 % relative improvement with ECPR. The absolute risk reduction was 4.5 %, with a number needed to treat of 22. However, significant heterogeneity was observed. The magnitude of benefit was highly dependent on patient and system factors, with the most pronounced advantages seen in patients with an initial shockable rhythm and shorter low-flow times. While one randomized controlled trial (ARREST) reported a large, significant effect (RR 6.43), the larger INCEPTION trial found a non-significant effect (RR 1.24).Conclusion: ECPR is associated with a significant improvement in survival with favorable neurological outcomes compared to CCPR. This benefit is not universal and appears greatest in selected populations, particularly those with shockable rhythms and rapid access to a highly organized ECPR system. Successful implementation requires robust protocols for rapid deployment and careful patient selection.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation is increasingly recognised as a rescue therapy for refractory cardiac arrest, nevertheless data are scanty about its effects on neurologic and cardiac outcome. The aim of this study is to compare clinical outcome in patients with cardiac arrest of ischaemic origin (i.e. critical coronary plaque during angiography) and return of spontaneous circulation during conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs refractory cardiac arrest patients needing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Moreover, we tried to identify predictors of survival after successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We enrolled 148 patients with ischaemic cardiac arrest admitted to our hospital from 2011-2015. We compared clinical characteristics, cardiac arrest features, neurological and echocardiographic data obtained after return of spontaneous circulation (within 24 h, 15 days and six months). Patients in the extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation group ( n=63, 43%) were younger (59±9 vs 63±8 year-old, p=0.02) with lower incidence of atherosclerosis risk factors than those with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In the extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation group, left ventricular ejection fraction was lower than conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation at early echocardiography (19±16% vs 37±11 p<0.01). Survivors in both groups showed similar left ventricular ejection fraction 15 days and 4-6 months after cardiac arrest (46±8% vs 49±10, 47±11% vs 45±13%, p not significant for both), despite a major extent and duration of cardiac ischaemia in extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation patients. At multivariate analysis, the total cardiac arrest time was the only independent predictor of survival. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation patients are younger and have less comorbidities than conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but they have worse survival and lower early left ventricular ejection fraction. Survivors after extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation have a neurological outcome and recovery of heart function comparable to subjects with return of spontaneous circulation. Total cardiac arrest time is the only predictor of survival after cardiopulmonary resuscitation in both groups.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for acute aortic dissection during cardiac arrest: A nationwide retrospective observational study

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest: a comparative cohort study from the first ECPR program in Brazil.

BackgroundThe optimal low‐flow duration (LFD) for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) remains unclear. We evaluated the impact of LFD on neurological outcomes based on initial cardiac rhythms and compared trends between ECPR and CCPR.MethodsThis secondary analysis used data from a nationwide, prospective study of adult (≥18 years) nontraumatic patients with out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation upon hospital arrival (June 2014–December 2019). LFD was defined as time from professional cardiopulmonary resuscitation initiation to ECPR initiation or return of spontaneous circulation/termination of resuscitation in CCPR. The primary outcome was 1‐month survival with favorable neurological status (Cerebral Performance Category scale 1 or 2). Patients were stratified into 4 groups based on first documented cardiac rhythm (pre‐ or in‐hospital).ResultsAmong 42 365 patients (1355 ECPR, 36 991 CCPR), longer LFD was associated with poorer neurological outcomes in patients with initial shockable rhythms, regardless of ECPR or CCPR use. The highest favorable outcome rates were observed in the Shockable–Shockable groups (ECPR: 16.0%; CCPR: 16.9%), with a clear decline in outcomes as LFD increased (both P for trend <0.001). In contrast, this trend was absent in ECPR‐treated patients with initial nonshockable rhythms, who had consistently poor outcomes.ConclusionsLonger LFD is associated with worse outcomes in patients with initial shockable rhythms. This association was not observed in nonshockable cases, although their prognosis was generally poor. Defining rhythm‐specific LFD thresholds may guide ECPR use and improve outcomes.

Comparing the effects of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) on outcomes in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in China. The benefits of ECPR over CCPR in patients with IHCA remain controversial. This article analyzed data from the BASeline Investigation of In-hospital Cardiac Arrest (BASIC-IHCA) study, which consecutively enrolled patients with IHCA from July 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. Patients who received ECPR were selected as the case group and matched with patients who received CCPR as the control group by propensity score at a ratio of 1:4. A parallel questionnaire survey of participating hospitals was conducted, to collect data on ECPR cases from January 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021. The primary outcome was survival to discharge or 30-day survival. We included 39 hospitals across 31 provinces in China. Patients receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation and without contraindications to ECPR were selected from the BASIC-IHCA database. Patients older than 75 years, not witnessed, or with cardiopulmonary resuscitation duration less than 10 min were excluded. None. A total of 4853 patients met the inclusion criteria before matching, with 34 undergoing ECPR (median age, 56.5 yr; 67.65% male) and 4819 underwent CCPR (median age, 59 yr; 64.52% male). There were 132 patients receiving CCPR and 33 patients receiving ECPR who were eventually matched. The ECPR group had significantly higher survival rates at discharge or 30-day survival (21.21% vs. 7.58%, p = 0.048). The ECPR group had significantly lower mortality rates (hazard ratio 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.91) than the CCPR group at discharge or 30 days. Besides the BASIC-IHCA study, the volume of ECPR implementations and the survival rate of patients with ECPR (29.4% vs. 10.4%. p = 0.004) in participating hospitals significantly improved. ECPR may be beneficial compared with CCPR for patient survival after IHCA and should be considered for eligible patients with IHCA.

Background: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has the potential to improve neurological outcomes in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), offering an alternative to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR). However, its effectiveness in OHCA remains controversial despite advancements in resuscitation techniques. Methods: This retrospective single-center study compared neurological outcomes and 30-day survival between ECPR and CCPR patients from January 2014 to January 2022. Patients aged 18–75 with witnessed OHCA, minimal no flow and low flow times, and cardiac arrests occurring at home or in public places were included. All patients were transported directly to our institution, a tertiary medical center serving the southeastern region of Seoul, where extracorporeal membrane oxygenation implantation was consistently performed in the emergency department. Neurological outcomes were assessed using Cerebral Performance Category scores, with good outcomes defined as scores of 1–2. Statistical analyses included logistic regression models and Kaplan–Meier survival curves, adjusted for confounders using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Results: ECPR was associated with significantly better neurological outcomes than CCPR (p < 0.001). Factors predicting poor outcomes included older age and longer low flow times, while male sex and shockable rhythms were protective. No significant difference was found in 30-day survival between the ECPR and CCPR groups, although a trend toward better survival was noted with ECPR. Conclusions: ECPR may improve neurological outcomes in patients with refractory OHCA compared to CCPR, although it does not significantly affect 30-day survival. Further studies are necessary to validate these findings and explore the long-term impacts of ECPR.

42 Improving Patient Selection in International Pediatric ECPR Cohorts

Encouraging results of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for patients with refractory cardiac arrest have been shown. However, the independent impact on the neurologic outcome remains unknown in the out-of-hospital population. Our objective was to compare the neurologic outcome following extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation and determine potential predictors that can identify candidates for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin. Post hoc analysis of data from a prospective observational cohort. A tertiary care university hospital in Sapporo, Japan (January 2000 to September 2004). A total of 162 adult patients with witnessed cardiac arrest of cardiac origin who had undergone cardiopulmonary resuscitation for longer than 20 minutes (53 in the extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation group and 109 in the conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation group). None. The primary endpoint was neurologically intact survival at three months after cardiac arrest. We used propensity score matching to reduce selection bias and balance the baseline characteristics and clinical variables that could potentially affect outcome. This matching process selected 24 patients from each group. The impact of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation was estimated in matched patients. Intact survival rate was higher in the matched extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation group than in the matched conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation group (29.2% [7/24] vs. 8.3% [2/24], log-rank p = 0.018). According to the predictor analysis, only pupil diameter on hospital arrival was associated with neurologic outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39 per 1-mm increase; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.78; p = 0.008). Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation can improve neurologic outcome after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin; furthermore, pupil diameter on hospital arrival may be a key predictor to identify extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation candidates.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), while resource-intensive, may improve outcomes in selected patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). We sought to identify patients who fulfilled a set of ECPR criteria in order to estimate: (1) the proportion of patients with refractory cardiac arrest who may have benefited from ECPR; and (2) the outcomes achieved with conventional resuscitation. We performed a secondary analysis from a 52-month prospective registry of consecutive adult non-traumatic OHCA cases from a single urban Canadian health region serving one million patients. We developed a hypothetical ECPR-eligible cohort including adult patients <60 years of age with a witnessed OHCA, and either bystander CPR or EMS arrival within five minutes. The primary outcome was the proportion of ECPR-eligible patients who had refractory cardiac arrest, defined as termination of resuscitation pre-hospital or in the ED. The secondary outcome was the proportion of EPCR-eligible patients who survived to hospital discharge. Of 1,644 EMS-treated OHCA, 168 (10.2%) fulfilled our ECPR criteria. Overall, 54/1644 (3.3%; 95% CI 2.4%-4.1%) who were ECPR-eligible had refractory cardiac arrest. Of ECPR-eligible patients, 114/168 (68%, 95% CI 61%-75%) survived to hospital admission, and 70/168 (42%; 95% CI 34-49%) survived to hospital discharge. In our region, approximately 10% of EMS-treated cases of OHCA fulfilled our ECPR criteria, and approximately one-third of these (an average of 12 patients per year) were refractory to conventional resuscitation. The integration of an ECPR program into an existing high-performing system of care may have a small but clinically important effect on patient outcomes.

This systemic review aimed to explore the predictors of discharge and neurologic outcome of adult extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) to provide references for patient selection. Electronically searching of the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and manual retrieval were done for clinical trials about predictors for adult ECPR which were published between January 2000 and January 2018 and included predictors for discharge and neurologic outcome. The literature was screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, the baseline information and interested outcomes were extracted. Two reviewers assessed the methodologic quality of the included studies and the quality of evidence for summary estimates independently. Pooled mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated by Review Manager Software 5.3. At last the quality of evidence for summary estimates was appraised according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation rating system. In 16 studies, 1162 patients were enrolled. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (CA) (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.93, P = .02), in-hospital CA (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.08-2.77, P = .02), witnessed CA (OR 5.2, 95% CI 1.18-22.88, P = .01), bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (OR 7.35, 95% CI 2.32-23.25, P < .01), initial shockable rhythm (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.53-3.42, P < .01), 1st recorded nonshockable rhythm (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.66, P < .01), CPR duration (MD -13.84 minutes, 95% CI -21 to -6.69, P < .0001), arrest-to-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (MD -17.88 minutes, 95% CI -23.59 to -12.17, P < .01), PH (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21, P < .01), lactate (MD -3.66 mmol/L, 95% CI -7.15 to -0.17, P = .04), and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.02-2.58, P = .04)were identified as the survival predictors of ECPR. Shockable rhythm (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.20-4.52, P = .01) and CPR duration (MD -9.85 minutes, 95% CI -15.71 to -3.99, P = .001) were identified as the neurologic outcome predictors of ECPR. Current evidence showed that in-hospital CA, witnessed CA, bystander CPR, initial shockable rhythm, shorter CPR duration and arrest-to-ECMO duration, higher baseline PH, lower baseline lactate and PCI were favourable survival predictors of adult ECPR, and shockable rhythm and shorter CPR duration were good neurological outcome predictors of adult ECPR.