• Jing-Yi Wang, Yan Chen, Run Dong, Shan Li, Jin-Min Peng, Xiao-Yun Hu, Wei Jiang, Chun-Yao Wang, Li Weng, Bin Du, and China Critical Care Clinical Trials Group (CCCCTG).
• Medical Intensive Care Unit, State Key Laboratory of Complex Severe and Rare Diseases, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Peking Union Medical College & Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2024 Jun 1; 80: 185193185-193.

BackgroundOut-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a potential intervention for OHCA, but its effectiveness compared to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) needs further evaluation.MethodWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant studies from January 2010 to March 2023. Pooled meta-analysis was performed to investigate any potential association between ECPR and improved survival and neurological outcomes.ResultsThis systematic review and meta-analysis included two randomized controlled trials enrolling 162 participants and 10 observational cohort studies enrolling 4507 participants. The pooled meta-analysis demonstrated that compared to CCRP, ECPR did not improve survival and neurological outcomes at 180 days following OHCA (RR: 3.39, 95% CI: 0.79 to 14.64; RR: 2.35, 95% CI: 0.97 to 5.67). While a beneficial effect of ECPR was obtained regarding 30-day survival and neurological outcomes. Furthermore, ECPR was associated with a higher risk of bleeding complications. Subgroup analysis showed that ECPR was prominently beneficial when exclusively initiated in the emergency department. Additional post-resuscitation treatments did not significantly impact the efficacy of ECPR on 180-day survival with favorable neurological outcomes.ConclusionsThere is no high-quality evidence supporting the superiority of ECPR over CCPR in terms of survival and neurological outcomes in OHCA patients. However, due to the potential for bias, heterogeneity among studies, and inconsistency in practice, the non-significant results do not preclude the potential benefits of ECPR. Further high-quality research is warranted to optimize ECPR practice and provide more generalizable evidence. Clinical trial registration PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, registry number: CRD42023402211.Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

11 keywords...

hide…