• Shinichi Ijuin, Akihiko Inoue, Satoshi Ishihara, Masafumi Suga, Takeshi Nishimura, Shota Kikuta, Haruki Nakayama, Nobuaki Igarashi, Shigenari Matsuyama, Tomofumi Doi, and Shinichi Nakayama.
• Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Hyogo Emergency Medical Center, 1-3-1 Wakinohamakaigandori, Chuo-ku, Kobe, 651-0073, Japan. shinichiijuin821@gmail.com.
• Scand J Trauma Resus. 2022 May 31; 30 (1): 3737.

BackgroundWhether extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is indicated for patients with pulseless electrical activity (PEA) remains unclear. Pulmonary embolism with PEA is a good candidate for ECPR; however, PEA can sometimes include an aortic disease and intracranial haemorrhage, with extremely poor neurological outcomes, and can thus not be used as a suitable candidate. We began employing an ECPR strategy that utilised a hybrid emergency room (ER) to perform computed tomography (CT) before extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) induction from January 2020. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this ECPR strategy.MethodsMedical records of patients who transferred to our hybrid ER and required ECPR for PEA between January 2020 and November 2021 were reviewed.ResultsTwelve consecutive patients (median age, 67 [range, 57-73] years) with PEA requiring ECPR were identified in our hybrid ER. Among these patients, nine were diagnosed using an initial CT scan (intracranial haemorrhage (3); cardiac tamponade due to aortic dissection (3); aortic rupture (2); and cardiac rupture (1)), and unnecessary ECMO was avoided. The remaining three patients underwent ECPR, and two of them survived with favourable neurological outcomes. Patients not indicated for ECPR were excluded before ECMO induction.ConclusionOur ECPR strategy that involved the utilisation of a hybrid ER may be useful for the exclusion of patients with PEA not indicated for ECPR and decision making.© 2022. The Author(s).

14 keywords...

hide…