Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Crit Care. 2019 Jan 28;23(1):27. doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2320-1.

Comparison of extracorporeal and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a retrospective propensity score matched study.

Author information

1
Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Route de Lennik, 808, 1070, Brussels, Belgium.
2
U.O.C. Anestesia e Rianimazione 1, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy.
3
Department of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Route de Lennik, 808, 1070, Brussels, Belgium. ftaccone@ulb.ac.be.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The potential benefit of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) compared to conventional CPR (CCPR) for patients with refractory cardiac arrest (CA) remains unclear.

METHODS:

This 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.

RESULTS:

From 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).

CONCLUSIONS:

ECPR after CA may be associated with improved long-term neurological outcome.

KEYWORDS:

ECMO; Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Neurological outcome; Out-of-hospital; Post-anoxic brain damage; Survival rate

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center