Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Extracorporeal Versus Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Propensity Score Matching Cohort Study
Authors' conclusion
ECPR may be beneficial compared with CCPR for patient survival after IHCA
Study context
- Population
- Patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) receiving CPR without contraindications to ECPR, aged ≤75 yr, witnessed, CPR duration ≥10 min; BASIC-IHCA study, 39 hospitals in China, July 2019–December 2020before matching
- Participants
- 4,853 patients
- Exposure
- ECPR vs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR)
- ECPRn = 33
- CCPRn = 132reference
- Outcome
- Survival to discharge or 30-day survival
Methodological detailspropensity-score matched (1:4), multicentre registry
- Propensity-score matched (1:4)
- Multicentre registry
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
P = 0.048
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | HR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Mortality at discharge or 30 days | 0.57 (0.38–0.91) | |
| 0.20.5125Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Survival rate of ECPR patients in participating hospitals (questionnaire survey, January–November 2021)
- Survival rate of patients with ECPR significantly improved (29.4% vs. 10.4%)
- P = 0.004
Original publication
Extracorporeal Versus Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Propensity Score Matching Cohort Study. Crit Care Med. Published 5 March 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →