Matteo Pozzi1, Xavier Armoiry2, Felix Achana2, Catherine Koffel3, Isabelle Pavlakovic3, Flavie Lavigne3, Jean Luc Fellahi3, Jean Francois Obadia4. 1. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Louis Pradel Cardiologic Hospital, Lyon, France. Electronic address: mpozzi1979@gmail.com. 2. Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Louis Pradel Cardiologic Hospital, Lyon, France. 4. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Louis Pradel Cardiologic Hospital, Lyon, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation of cardiac arrest has poor outcomes. Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) could represent a salvage option. This study aimed to analyze the outcomes of ECLS used for refractory cardiac arrest. METHODS: In this observational analysis, patients were divided into an in-hospital cardiac arrest group (IHCA) and an out-of-hospital (OHCA) cardiac arrest group. The primary end point was survival to hospital discharge with good neurologic outcome. Both groups were compared after propensity score matching. Risk factors were searched with multivariate analyses. RESULTS: From January 2007 to December 2016, study investigators performed 131 ECLS procedures (IHCA, n = 45, 34.4%; OHCA, n = 86, 65.6%). The mean age of patients was 43.2 years, and 71.8% were male. Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups except mean no-flow duration (0.2 minutes vs 2.5 minutes; p < 0.001) and low-flow duration (46.9 minutes vs 85.3 minutes; p < 0.001), which were significantly shorter in the IHCA group. A total of 103 (82.4%) patients died during ECLS (IHCA, 79.1% vs OHCA, 84.1%; p = 0.479). The complication rate during ECLS was comparable between both groups. Twenty (16%) patients were successfully weaned from ECLS (IHCA, 18.6% vs OHCA, 14.6%; p = 0.565) after a mean support period of 6.7 days. Survival to hospital discharge with good neurologic outcome was not different between the two matched groups (odds ratioOHCA vs IHCA 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.023 to 74.902; p = 0.9). Presence of shockable rhythm was associated with a better outcome (odds ratioshockable vs nonshockable 6.674; 95% confidence interval, 1.078 to 41.336; p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the IHCA and OHCA groups experienced the same survival with good neurologic outcome after ECLS support. A better selection of patients with IHCA is mandatory to avoid futile support.
BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation of cardiac arrest has poor outcomes. Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) could represent a salvage option. This study aimed to analyze the outcomes of ECLS used for refractory cardiac arrest. METHODS: In this observational analysis, patients were divided into an in-hospital cardiac arrest group (IHCA) and an out-of-hospital (OHCA) cardiac arrest group. The primary end point was survival to hospital discharge with good neurologic outcome. Both groups were compared after propensity score matching. Risk factors were searched with multivariate analyses. RESULTS: From January 2007 to December 2016, study investigators performed 131 ECLS procedures (IHCA, n = 45, 34.4%; OHCA, n = 86, 65.6%). The mean age of patients was 43.2 years, and 71.8% were male. Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups except mean no-flow duration (0.2 minutes vs 2.5 minutes; p < 0.001) and low-flow duration (46.9 minutes vs 85.3 minutes; p < 0.001), which were significantly shorter in the IHCA group. A total of 103 (82.4%) patientsdied during ECLS (IHCA, 79.1% vs OHCA, 84.1%; p = 0.479). The complication rate during ECLS was comparable between both groups. Twenty (16%) patients were successfully weaned from ECLS (IHCA, 18.6% vs OHCA, 14.6%; p = 0.565) after a mean support period of 6.7 days. Survival to hospital discharge with good neurologic outcome was not different between the two matched groups (odds ratioOHCA vs IHCA 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.023 to 74.902; p = 0.9). Presence of shockable rhythm was associated with a better outcome (odds ratioshockable vs nonshockable 6.674; 95% confidence interval, 1.078 to 41.336; p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS:Patients in the IHCA and OHCA groups experienced the same survival with good neurologic outcome after ECLS support. A better selection of patients with IHCA is mandatory to avoid futile support.
Authors: David Vandroux; Thomas Aujoulat; Bernard-Alex Gaüzère; Bérénice Puech; Bertrand Guihard; Olivier Martinet Journal: World J Emerg Med Date: 2022
Authors: Vassili Panagides; Henrik Vase; Sachin P Shah; Mir B Basir; Julien Mancini; Hayaan Kamran; Supria Batra; Marc Laine; Hans Eiskjær; Steffen Christensen; Mina Karami; Franck Paganelli; Jose P S Henriques; Laurent Bonello Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Benjamin Yaël Gravesteijn; Marc Schluep; Maksud Disli; Prakriti Garkhail; Dinis Dos Reis Miranda; Robert-Jan Stolker; Henrik Endeman; Sanne Elisabeth Hoeks Journal: Crit Care Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 9.097