OBJECTIVE: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) may improve outcomes for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Transport of intra-arrest patients to hospital however, may decrease CPR quality, potentially reducing survival for those who would have achieved return-of-spontaneous-circulation (ROSC) with further on-scene resuscitation. We examined time-to-ROSC and patient outcomes for the optimal time to consider transport. METHODS: From a prospective registry of consecutive adult non-traumatic OHCA's, we identified a hypothetical ECPR-eligible cohort of EMS-treated patients with age ≤ 65, witnessed arrest, and bystander CPR or EMS arrival < 10 minutes. We assessed the relationship between time-to-ROSC and survival, and constructed a ROC curve to illustrate the ability of a pulseless state to predict non-survival with conventional resuscitation. RESULTS: Of 6,571 EMS-treated cases, 1,206 were included with 27% surviving. Increasing time-to-ROSC (per minute) was negatively associated with survival (adjusted OR 0.91; 95%CI 0.89-0.93%). The yield of survivors per minute of resuscitation increased from commencement and started to decline in the 8th minute. Fifty percent and 90% of survivors had achieved ROSC by 8.0 and 24 min, respectively, at which times the probability of survival for those with initial shockable rhythms was 31% and 10%, and for non-shockable rhythms was 5.2% and 1.6%. The ROC curve illustrated that the 16th minute of resuscitation maximized sensitivity and specificity (AUC = 0.87, 95% CI 0.85-0.89). CONCLUSION: Transport for ECPR should be considered between 8 to 24 minutes of professional on-scene resuscitation, with 16 minutes balancing the risks and benefits of early and later transport. Earlier transport within this window may be preferred if high quality CPR can be maintained during transport and for those with initial non-shockable rhythms.
OBJECTIVE: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) may improve outcomes for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Transport of intra-arrestpatients to hospital however, may decrease CPR quality, potentially reducing survival for those who would have achieved return-of-spontaneous-circulation (ROSC) with further on-scene resuscitation. We examined time-to-ROSC and patient outcomes for the optimal time to consider transport. METHODS: From a prospective registry of consecutive adult non-traumatic OHCA's, we identified a hypothetical ECPR-eligible cohort of EMS-treated patients with age ≤ 65, witnessed arrest, and bystander CPR or EMS arrival < 10 minutes. We assessed the relationship between time-to-ROSC and survival, and constructed a ROC curve to illustrate the ability of a pulseless state to predict non-survival with conventional resuscitation. RESULTS: Of 6,571 EMS-treated cases, 1,206 were included with 27% surviving. Increasing time-to-ROSC (per minute) was negatively associated with survival (adjusted OR 0.91; 95%CI 0.89-0.93%). The yield of survivors per minute of resuscitation increased from commencement and started to decline in the 8th minute. Fifty percent and 90% of survivors had achieved ROSC by 8.0 and 24 min, respectively, at which times the probability of survival for those with initial shockable rhythms was 31% and 10%, and for non-shockable rhythms was 5.2% and 1.6%. The ROC curve illustrated that the 16th minute of resuscitation maximized sensitivity and specificity (AUC = 0.87, 95% CI 0.85-0.89). CONCLUSION: Transport for ECPR should be considered between 8 to 24 minutes of professional on-scene resuscitation, with 16 minutes balancing the risks and benefits of early and later transport. Earlier transport within this window may be preferred if high quality CPR can be maintained during transport and for those with initial non-shockable rhythms.
Authors: Joshua C Reynolds; Brian E Grunau; Jon C Rittenberger; Kelly N Sawyer; Michael C Kurz; Clifton W Callaway Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jan Belohlavek; Jana Smalcova; Daniel Rob; Ondrej Franek; Ondrej Smid; Milana Pokorna; Jan Horák; Vratislav Mrazek; Tomas Kovarnik; David Zemanek; Ales Kral; Stepan Havranek; Petra Kavalkova; Lucie Kompelentova; Helena Tomková; Alan Mejstrik; Jaroslav Valasek; David Peran; Jaroslav Pekara; Jan Rulisek; Martin Balik; Michal Huptych; Jiri Jarkovsky; Jan Malik; Anna Valerianova; Frantisek Mlejnsky; Petr Kolouch; Petra Havrankova; Dan Romportl; Arnost Komarek; Ales Linhart Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Demetris Yannopoulos; Jason Bartos; Ganesh Raveendran; Emily Walser; John Connett; Thomas A Murray; Gary Collins; Lin Zhang; Rajat Kalra; Marinos Kosmopoulos; Ranjit John; Andrew Shaffer; R J Frascone; Keith Wesley; Marc Conterato; Michelle Biros; Jakub Tolar; Tom P Aufderheide Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Cindy H Hsu; William J Meurer; Robert Domeier; Jennifer Fowler; Sage P Whitmore; Benjamin S Bassin; Kyle J Gunnerson; Jonathan W Haft; William R Lynch; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Renee A Havey; Kelley M Kidwell; William C Stacey; Robert Silbergleit; Robert H Bartlett; Robert W Neumar Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 6.762
Authors: Ilona Lálová; Lucie Filipovská; Hana Skalická; Ondřej Šmíd; Aleš Linhart; Helena Kollárová; Jan Bělohlávek Journal: Case Rep Med Date: 2018-01-14