Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest: An updated systematic review
Authors' conclusion
Recent randomized trials suggest potential benefit of ECPR, but the certainty of evidence remains low. It is unclear which patients might benefit from ECPR.
Study context
- Population
- Adults and children with out-of-hospital or in-hospital cardiac arrest3 trials, 27 observational, 6 cost-effectiveness studies
- Comparison
- Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) vs manual or mechanical CPR
Methodological detailsGRADE certainty assessment, no meta-analysis (heterogeneity), Update of a 2018 systematic review; searches January 1, 2018, to June 21, 2022
- GRADE certainty assessment
- No meta-analysis (heterogeneity)
- Update of a 2018 systematic review; searches January 1, 2018, to June 21, 2022
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- Trials (all adults with OHCA, terminated early): 1 found benefit of ECPR in survival and favorable neurological status; 2 found no statistically significant differences
- Observational studies (23 adult OHCA ± IHCA, 4 paediatric IHCA): results inconsistent, many favored ECPR
- Risk of bias intermediate for trials, critical for observational studies; certainty of evidence very low to low
Further pooled results
Cost-effectiveness
- Varied depending on setting and analysis assumptions
Original publication
Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest: An updated systematic review. Resuscitation. Published 12 December 2022. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →