Cargando…

The effect of restrictive versus liberal selection criteria on survival in ECPR: a retrospective analysis of a multi-regional dataset

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an established rescue therapy for both out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). However, there remains significant heterogeneity in populations and outcomes across different studies. The primary ai...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Diehl, Arne, Read, Andrew C., Southwood, Timothy, Buscher, Hergen, Dennis, Mark, Nanjayya, Vinodh Bhagyalakshmi, Burrell, Aidan J. C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10694924/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38044425
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-023-01154-1
_version_ 1785153481501310976
author Diehl, Arne
Read, Andrew C.
Southwood, Timothy
Buscher, Hergen
Dennis, Mark
Nanjayya, Vinodh Bhagyalakshmi
Burrell, Aidan J. C.
author_facet Diehl, Arne
Read, Andrew C.
Southwood, Timothy
Buscher, Hergen
Dennis, Mark
Nanjayya, Vinodh Bhagyalakshmi
Burrell, Aidan J. C.
author_sort Diehl, Arne
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an established rescue therapy for both out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). However, there remains significant heterogeneity in populations and outcomes across different studies. The primary aim of this study was to compare commonly used selection criteria and their effect on survival and utilisation in an Australian ECPR cohort. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational study of three established ECPR centres in Australia, including cases from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020 to establish the baseline cohort. We applied five commonly used ECPR selection criteria, ranging from restrictive to liberal. RESULTS: The baseline cohort included 199 ECPR cases: 95 OHCA and 104 IHCA patients. Survival to hospital discharge was 20% for OHCA and 41.4% for IHCA. For OHCA patients, strictly applying the most restrictive criteria would have resulted in the highest survival rate 7/16 (43.8%) compared to the most liberal criteria 16/73 (21.9%). However, only 16/95 (16.8%) in our cohort strictly met the most restrictive criteria versus 73/95 (76.8%) with the most liberal criteria. Similarly, in IHCA, the most restrictive criteria would have resulted in a higher survival rate in eligible patients 10/15 (66.7%) compared to 27/59 (45.8%) with the most liberal criteria. With all criteria a large portion of survivors in IHCA would not have been eligible for ECMO if strictly applying criteria, 33/43 (77%) with restrictive and 16/43 (37%) with the most liberal criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to different selection criteria impacts both the ECPR survival rate and the total number of survivors. Commonly used selection criteria may be unsuitable to select IHCA ECPR patients. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13049-023-01154-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10694924
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106949242023-12-05 The effect of restrictive versus liberal selection criteria on survival in ECPR: a retrospective analysis of a multi-regional dataset Diehl, Arne Read, Andrew C. Southwood, Timothy Buscher, Hergen Dennis, Mark Nanjayya, Vinodh Bhagyalakshmi Burrell, Aidan J. C. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an established rescue therapy for both out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). However, there remains significant heterogeneity in populations and outcomes across different studies. The primary aim of this study was to compare commonly used selection criteria and their effect on survival and utilisation in an Australian ECPR cohort. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, observational study of three established ECPR centres in Australia, including cases from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020 to establish the baseline cohort. We applied five commonly used ECPR selection criteria, ranging from restrictive to liberal. RESULTS: The baseline cohort included 199 ECPR cases: 95 OHCA and 104 IHCA patients. Survival to hospital discharge was 20% for OHCA and 41.4% for IHCA. For OHCA patients, strictly applying the most restrictive criteria would have resulted in the highest survival rate 7/16 (43.8%) compared to the most liberal criteria 16/73 (21.9%). However, only 16/95 (16.8%) in our cohort strictly met the most restrictive criteria versus 73/95 (76.8%) with the most liberal criteria. Similarly, in IHCA, the most restrictive criteria would have resulted in a higher survival rate in eligible patients 10/15 (66.7%) compared to 27/59 (45.8%) with the most liberal criteria. With all criteria a large portion of survivors in IHCA would not have been eligible for ECMO if strictly applying criteria, 33/43 (77%) with restrictive and 16/43 (37%) with the most liberal criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to different selection criteria impacts both the ECPR survival rate and the total number of survivors. Commonly used selection criteria may be unsuitable to select IHCA ECPR patients. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13049-023-01154-1. BioMed Central 2023-12-04 /pmc/articles/PMC10694924/ /pubmed/38044425 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-023-01154-1 Text en © Crown 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Original Research
Diehl, Arne
Read, Andrew C.
Southwood, Timothy
Buscher, Hergen
Dennis, Mark
Nanjayya, Vinodh Bhagyalakshmi
Burrell, Aidan J. C.
The effect of restrictive versus liberal selection criteria on survival in ECPR: a retrospective analysis of a multi-regional dataset
title The effect of restrictive versus liberal selection criteria on survival in ECPR: a retrospective analysis of a multi-regional dataset
title_full The effect of restrictive versus liberal selection criteria on survival in ECPR: a retrospective analysis of a multi-regional dataset
title_fullStr The effect of restrictive versus liberal selection criteria on survival in ECPR: a retrospective analysis of a multi-regional dataset
title_full_unstemmed The effect of restrictive versus liberal selection criteria on survival in ECPR: a retrospective analysis of a multi-regional dataset
title_short The effect of restrictive versus liberal selection criteria on survival in ECPR: a retrospective analysis of a multi-regional dataset
title_sort effect of restrictive versus liberal selection criteria on survival in ecpr: a retrospective analysis of a multi-regional dataset
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10694924/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38044425
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-023-01154-1
work_keys_str_mv AT diehlarne theeffectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset
AT readandrewc theeffectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset
AT southwoodtimothy theeffectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset
AT buscherhergen theeffectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset
AT dennismark theeffectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset
AT nanjayyavinodhbhagyalakshmi theeffectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset
AT burrellaidanjc theeffectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset
AT diehlarne effectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset
AT readandrewc effectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset
AT southwoodtimothy effectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset
AT buscherhergen effectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset
AT dennismark effectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset
AT nanjayyavinodhbhagyalakshmi effectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset
AT burrellaidanjc effectofrestrictiveversusliberalselectioncriteriaonsurvivalinecpraretrospectiveanalysisofamultiregionaldataset