Comparison of extracorporeal and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation

a retrospective propensity score matched study

Daniel Patricio, Lorenzo Peluso, Alexandre Brasseur, Olivier Lheureux, Mirko Belliato, Jean Louis Vincent, Jacques Creteur, Fabio Silvio Taccone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages1
JournalCritical care (London, England)
Volume23
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 28 2019

Fingerprint

Propensity Score
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Heart Arrest
Nervous System
Logistic Models
Physicians
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Survival

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of extracorporeal and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation : a retrospective propensity score matched study. / Patricio, Daniel; Peluso, Lorenzo; Brasseur, Alexandre; Lheureux, Olivier; Belliato, Mirko; Vincent, Jean Louis; Creteur, Jacques; Taccone, Fabio Silvio.

In: Critical care (London, England), Vol. 23, No. 1, 28.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Patricio, Daniel ; Peluso, Lorenzo ; Brasseur, Alexandre ; Lheureux, Olivier ; Belliato, Mirko ; Vincent, Jean Louis ; Creteur, Jacques ; Taccone, Fabio Silvio. / Comparison of extracorporeal and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation : a retrospective propensity score matched study. In: Critical care (London, England). 2019 ; Vol. 23, No. 1.
@article{ffd643258182470090f1c8a0768118f0,
title = "Comparison of extracorporeal and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a retrospective propensity score matched study",
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",
author = "Daniel Patricio and Lorenzo Peluso and Alexandre Brasseur and Olivier Lheureux and Mirko Belliato and Vincent, {Jean Louis} and Jacques Creteur and Taccone, {Fabio Silvio}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "28",
doi = "10.1186/s13054-019-2320-1",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
journal = "Critical Care",
issn = "1466-609X",
publisher = "Springer Science + Business Media",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of extracorporeal and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation

T2 - a retrospective propensity score matched study

AU - Patricio, Daniel

AU - Peluso, Lorenzo

AU - Brasseur, Alexandre

AU - Lheureux, Olivier

AU - Belliato, Mirko

AU - Vincent, Jean Louis

AU - Creteur, Jacques

AU - Taccone, Fabio Silvio

PY - 2019/1/28

Y1 - 2019/1/28

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - ECMO

KW - Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

KW - Neurological outcome

KW - Out-of-hospital

KW - Post-anoxic brain damage

KW - Survival rate

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85060618777&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85060618777&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13054-019-2320-1

DO - 10.1186/s13054-019-2320-1

M3 - Article

VL - 23

JO - Critical Care

JF - Critical Care

SN - 1466-609X

IS - 1

ER -