• Jou-Wei Lin, Ming-Jiuh Wang, Hsi-Yu Yu, Chih-Hsien Wang, Wei-Tien Chang, Jih-Shuin Jerng, Shu-Chien Huang, Nai-Kuan Chou, Nai-Hsin Chi, Wen-Je Ko, Ya-Chen Wang, Shoei-Shen Wang, Juey-Jen Hwang, Fang-Yue Lin, and Yih-Sharng Chen.
• Cardiovascular Center, National Taiwan University Hospital Yun-Lin Branch, Dou-Liou City, Yun-Lin, Taiwan.
• Resuscitation. 2010 Jul 1;81(7):796-803.

AimExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has been shown to have survival benefit over conventional CPR (CCPR) in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin. We compared the survival of patients who had return of spontaneous beating (ROSB) after ECPR with the survival of those who had return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after conventional CPR.MethodsPropensity score-matched cohort of adults with in-hospital prolonged CPR (>10min) of cardiac origin in a university-affiliated tertiary extracorporeal resuscitation center were included in this study. Fifty-nine patients with ROSB after ECPR and 63 patients with sustained ROSC by CCPR were analyzed. Main outcome measures were survival at hospital discharge, 30 days, 6 months, and one year, and neurological outcome.ResultsThere was no statistical difference in survival to discharge (29.1% of ECPR responders vs. 22.2% of CCPR responders, p=0.394) and neurological outcome at discharge and one year later. In the propensity score-matched groups, 9 out of 27 ECPR patients survived to one month (33.3%) and 7 out of 27 CCPR patients survived (25.9%). Survival analysis showed no survival difference (HR: 0.856, p=0.634, 95% CI: 0.453-1.620) between the groups, either at 30 days or at the end of one year (HR: 0.602, p=0.093, 95% CI: 0.333-1.088).ConclusionsThis study failed to demonstrate a survival difference between patients who had ROSB after institution of ECMO and those who had ROSC after conventional CPR. Further studies evaluating the role of ECMO in conventional CPR rescued patients are warranted.

29 keywords...

hide…