Hiroyuki Ohbe1, Takayuki Ogura2, Hiroki Matsui3, Hideo Yasunaga3. 1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Health Economics, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan. Electronic address: hohbey@gmail.com. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine and Critical Care Medicine, Tochigi Prefectural Emergency and Critical Care Centre, Imperial Foundation SAISEIKAI, Utsunomiya Hospital, Tochigi, Japan. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Health Economics, School of Public Health, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.
Abstract
AIM: Acute aortic dissection (AAD) has been considered a contraindication for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). However, studies are lacking regarding the epidemiology and effectiveness of ECPR for AAD. We aimed to examine whether ECPR for AAD during refractory cardiac arrest is effective. METHODS: Using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database from July 2010 to March 2018, we identified all emergently hospitalized adults who received ECPR on the day of admission and all AAD patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the day of admission. ECPR was defined as receiving both cardiopulmonary resuscitation and percutaneous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Outcomes were in-hospital mortality and neurological outcomes. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECPR for AAD. RESULTS: We identified 398 AAD patients with ECPR, 9840 non-AAD patients with ECPR, and 9709 AAD patients with cardiopulmonary resuscitation but not ECPR. The incidence of AAD among the patients with ECPR on the day of admission was 3.9%. In-hospital mortality was 98% in AAD patients with ECPR, 79% in non-AAD patients with ECPR, and 98% in AAD patients with cardiopulmonary resuscitation but not ECPR. Seven AAD patients survived to discharge after ECPR; of these, six patients had good neurological outcomes at discharge. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECPR for AAD was estimated at 161,504 US dollars per quality-adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSION: ECPR successfully improved outcomes and/or facilitated surgery for a small number of AAD patients with refractory cardiac arrest; however, the cost burden of ECPR for AAD patients may be unacceptably high.
AIM: Acute aortic dissection (AAD) has been considered a contraindication for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). However, studies are lacking regarding the epidemiology and effectiveness of ECPR for AAD. We aimed to examine whether ECPR for AAD during refractory cardiac arrest is effective. METHODS: Using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination inpatient database from July 2010 to March 2018, we identified all emergently hospitalized adults who received ECPR on the day of admission and all AAD patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation on the day of admission. ECPR was defined as receiving both cardiopulmonary resuscitation and percutaneous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Outcomes were in-hospital mortality and neurological outcomes. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECPR for AAD. RESULTS: We identified 398 AAD patients with ECPR, 9840 non-AAD patients with ECPR, and 9709 AAD patients with cardiopulmonary resuscitation but not ECPR. The incidence of AAD among the patients with ECPR on the day of admission was 3.9%. In-hospital mortality was 98% in AAD patients with ECPR, 79% in non-AAD patients with ECPR, and 98% in AAD patients with cardiopulmonary resuscitation but not ECPR. Seven AAD patients survived to discharge after ECPR; of these, six patients had good neurological outcomes at discharge. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ECPR for AAD was estimated at 161,504 US dollars per quality-adjusted life year gained. CONCLUSION: ECPR successfully improved outcomes and/or facilitated surgery for a small number of AAD patients with refractory cardiac arrest; however, the cost burden of ECPR for AAD patients may be unacceptably high.