BACKGROUND: The outcomes of several randomized trials on extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were examined using frequentist methods, resulting in a dichotomous interpretation of results based on p-values rather than in the probability of clinically relevant treatment effects. To determine such a probability of a clinically relevant ECPR-based treatment effect on neurological outcomes, the authors of these trials performed a Bayesian meta-analysis of the totality of randomized ECPR evidence. METHODS: A systematic search was applied to three electronic databases. Randomized trials that compared ECPR-based treatment with conventional CPR for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. The study was preregistered in INPLASY (INPLASY2023120060). The primary Bayesian hierarchical meta-analysis estimated the difference in 6-month neurologically favorable survival in patients with all rhythms, and a secondary analysis assessed this difference in patients with shockable rhythms (Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model). Primary Bayesian analyses were performed under vague priors. Outcomes were formulated as estimated median relative risks, mean absolute risk differences, and numbers needed to treat with corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The posterior probabilities of various clinically relevant absolute risk difference thresholds were estimated. RESULTS: Three randomized trials were included in the analysis (ECPR, n = 209 patients; conventional CPR, n = 211 patients). The estimated median relative risk of ECPR for 6-month neurologically favorable survival was 1.47 (95%CrI 0.73-3.32) with a mean absolute risk difference of 8.7% (- 5.0; 42.7%) in patients with all rhythms, and the median relative risk was 1.54 (95%CrI 0.79-3.71) with a mean absolute risk difference of 10.8% (95%CrI - 4.2; 73.9%) in patients with shockable rhythms. The posterior probabilities of an absolute risk difference > 0% and > 5% were 91.0% and 71.1% in patients with all rhythms and 92.4% and 75.8% in patients with shockable rhythms, respectively. CONCLUSION: The current Bayesian meta-analysis found a 71.1% and 75.8% posterior probability of a clinically relevant ECPR-based treatment effect on 6-month neurologically favorable survival in patients with all rhythms and shockable rhythms. These results must be interpreted within the context of the reported credible intervals and varying designs of the randomized trials. REGISTRATION: INPLASY (INPLASY2023120060, December 14th, 2023, https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2023.12.0060 ).
- Klíčová slova
- Bayesian statistical inference, Conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Neurologically favorable survival, Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, Randomized controlled trials,
- MeSH
- Bayesova věta * MeSH
- kardiopulmonální resuscitace * metody normy MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mimotělní membránová oxygenace metody MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma metody MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- zástava srdce mimo nemocnici * terapie mortalita MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- metaanalýza MeSH
BACKGROUND: Randomized data evaluating the impact of the extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) approach on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are lacking. The objective of this follow-up study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of the ECPR-based versus CCPR approach. METHODS: The Prague OHCA trial was a single-center, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with witnessed refractory OHCA of presumed cardiac origin, without return of spontaneous circulation, were randomized during ongoing resuscitation on scene to conventional CPR (CCPR) or an ECPR-based approach (intra-arrest transport, ECPR if ROSC is not achieved prehospital and immediate invasive assessment). RESULTS: From March 2013 to October 2020, 264 patients were randomized during ongoing resuscitation on scene, and 256 patients were enrolled. Long-term follow-up was performed 5.3 (interquartile range 3.8-7.2) years after initial randomization and was completed in 255 of 256 patients (99.6%). In total, 34/123 (27.6%) patients in the ECPR-based group and 26/132 (19.7%) in the CCPR group were alive (log-rank P = 0.01). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups in the neurological outcome, survival after hospital discharge, risk of hospitalization, major cardiovascular events and quality of life. Of long-term survivors, 1/34 (2.9%) in the ECPR-based arm and 1/26 (3.8%) in the CCPR arm had poor neurological outcome (both patients had a cerebral performance category score of 3). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with refractory OHCA, the ECPR-based approach significantly improved long-term survival. There were no differences in the neurological outcome, major cardiovascular events and quality of life between the groups, but the trial was possibly underpowered to detect a clinically relevant difference in these outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01511666, Registered 19 January 2012.
- Klíčová slova
- Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, Long-term, Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, Quality of life,
- MeSH
- časové faktory MeSH
- kardiopulmonální resuscitace * MeSH
- kvalita života MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- následné studie MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- zástava srdce mimo nemocnici * terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
INTRODUCTION: Failure to restore spontaneous circulation remains a major cause of death for cardiac arrest (CA) patients. Mechanical circulatory support, specifically extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), has emerged as a feasible and efficacious rescue strategy for selected refractory CA patients. METHODS: Mechanical Circulatory Support was one of six focus topics for the Wolf Creek XVII Conference held on June 14-17, 2023 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Conference invitees included international thought leaders and scientists in the field of CA resuscitation from academia and industry. Participants submitted via online survey knowledge gaps, barriers to translation and research priorities for each focus topic. Expert panels used the survey results and their own perspectives and insights to create and present a preliminary unranked list for each category that was debated, revised and ranked by all attendees to identify the top 5 for each category. RESULTS: Top 5 knowledge gaps included optimal patient selection, pre-ECPR treatments, logistical and programmatic characteristics of ECPR programs, generalizability and effectiveness of ECPR, and prevention of reperfusion injury. Top 5 barriers to translation included cost/resource limitations, technical challenges, collaboration across multiple disciplines, limited patient population, and early identification of eligible patients. Top 5 research priorities focused on comparing the outcomes of prehospital/rapid transport strategies vs in-hospital ECPR initiation, implementation of high-performing ECPR system vs standard care, rapid patient identification tools vs standard clinical judgment, post-cardiac arrest bundled care vs no bundled care, and standardized ECPR clinical protocol vs routine care. CONCLUSION: This overview can serve as an innovative guide to transform the care and outcome of patients with refractory CA.
- Klíčová slova
- Cardiac arrest, Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Mechanical circulatory support, Wolf Creek Conference,
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- přehledy MeSH
Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a promising treatment for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Three recent randomized trials (ARREST trial, Prague OHCA study, and INCEPTION trial) that addressed the clinical benefit of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest yielded seemingly diverging results. The evidence for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, derived from three recent randomized controlled trials, is not contradictory but rather complementary. Excellent results can be achieved with a very high level of dedication, provided that strict selection criteria are applied. However, pragmatic implementation of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation does not necessarily lead to improved outcome of refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Centres that are performing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or aspire to do so should critically evaluate whether they are able to meet the pre-requisites that are needed to conduct an effective extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation programme.
- Klíčová slova
- Efficacy and effectiveness, Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, Randomized controlled trials, Review,
- MeSH
- kardiopulmonální resuscitace * MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma MeSH
- zástava srdce mimo nemocnici * terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
