BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) has been proved in short-term follow-up studies. However, the benefit of E-CPR beyond 1 year has been not known. We investigated 2-year outcome of patients who received E-CPR or conventional CPR (C-CPR). METHODS: We analyzed a total of 406 adult in-hospital cardiac arrest victims who underwent CPR for more than 10 min from 2003 to 2009. The two-year survival and neurological outcome of E-CPR (n=85) and C-CPR (n=321) were compared using propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: The 2-year survival with minimal neurological impairment was 4-fold higher in the E-CPR group than the C-CPR group (23.5% versus 5.9%, hazard ratio (HR)=0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.43-0.75, p<0.001) by unadjusted analysis. After propensity-score matching, it was still 4-fold higher in the E-CPR group than the C-CPR group (20.0% versus 5.0%, HR=0.53, 95% CI=0.36-0.80, p=0.002). In the E-CPR group, the independent predictors associated with minimal neurological impairment were age ≤65 years (HR=0.46; 95% CI=0.26-0.81; p=0.008), CPR duration ≤35 min (HR=0.37; 95% CI=0.18-0.76; p=0.007), and subsequent cardiovascular intervention including coronary intervention or cardiac surgery (HR=0.36; 95% CI=0.18-0.68; p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The initial survival benefit of E-CPR for cardiac arrest patients persisted at 2 years.
BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) has been proved in short-term follow-up studies. However, the benefit of E-CPR beyond 1 year has been not known. We investigated 2-year outcome of patients who received E-CPR or conventional CPR (C-CPR). METHODS: We analyzed a total of 406 adult in-hospital cardiac arrest victims who underwent CPR for more than 10 min from 2003 to 2009. The two-year survival and neurological outcome of E-CPR (n=85) and C-CPR (n=321) were compared using propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: The 2-year survival with minimal neurological impairment was 4-fold higher in the E-CPR group than the C-CPR group (23.5% versus 5.9%, hazard ratio (HR)=0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.43-0.75, p<0.001) by unadjusted analysis. After propensity-score matching, it was still 4-fold higher in the E-CPR group than the C-CPR group (20.0% versus 5.0%, HR=0.53, 95% CI=0.36-0.80, p=0.002). In the E-CPR group, the independent predictors associated with minimal neurological impairment were age ≤65 years (HR=0.46; 95% CI=0.26-0.81; p=0.008), CPR duration ≤35 min (HR=0.37; 95% CI=0.18-0.76; p=0.007), and subsequent cardiovascular intervention including coronary intervention or cardiac surgery (HR=0.36; 95% CI=0.18-0.68; p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The initial survival benefit of E-CPR for cardiac arrestpatients persisted at 2 years.
Authors: Joseph E Tonna; Nicholas J Johnson; John Greenwood; David F Gaieski; Zachary Shinar; Joseph M Bellezo; Lance Becker; Atman P Shah; Scott T Youngquist; Michael P Mallin; James Franklin Fair; Kyle J Gunnerson; Cindy Weng; Stephen McKellar Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Darryl Abrams; A Reshad Garan; Akram Abdelbary; Matthew Bacchetta; Robert H Bartlett; James Beck; Jan Belohlavek; Yih-Sharng Chen; Eddy Fan; Niall D Ferguson; Jo-Anne Fowles; John Fraser; Michelle Gong; Ibrahim F Hassan; Carol Hodgson; Xiaotong Hou; Katarzyna Hryniewicz; Shingo Ichiba; William A Jakobleff; Roberto Lorusso; Graeme MacLaren; Shay McGuinness; Thomas Mueller; Pauline K Park; Giles Peek; Vin Pellegrino; Susanna Price; Erika B Rosenzweig; Tetsuya Sakamoto; Leonardo Salazar; Matthieu Schmidt; Arthur S Slutsky; Christian Spaulding; Hiroo Takayama; Koji Takeda; Alain Vuylsteke; Alain Combes; Daniel Brodie Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2018-02-15 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Javier J Lasa; Rachel S Rogers; Russell Localio; Justine Shults; Tia Raymond; Michael Gaies; Ravi Thiagarajan; Peter C Laussen; Todd Kilbaugh; Robert A Berg; Vinay Nadkarni; Alexis Topjian Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-12-03 Impact factor: 29.690