Aims Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) despite conventional resuscitation is common and has poor outcomes. Adding extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (extracorporeal-CPR) is increasingly used in an attempt to improve outcomes. Methods and results We analysed a prospective registry of 13 191 OHCAs in the Paris region from May 2011 to January 2018. We compared survival at hospital discharge with and without extracorporeal-CPR and identified factors associated with survival in patients given extracorporeal-CPR. Survival was 8% in 525 patients given extracorporeal-CPR and 9% in 12 666 patients given conventional-CPR (P = 0.91). By adjusted multivariate analysis, extracorporeal-CPR was not associated with hospital survival [odds ratio (OR), 1.3; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.8–2.1; P = 0.24]. By conditional logistic regression with matching on a propensity score (including age, sex, occurrence at home, bystander CPR, initial rhythm, collapse-to-CPR time, duration of resuscitation, and ROSC), similar results were found (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5–1.3; P = 0.41). In the extracorporeal-CPR group, factors associated with hospital survival were initial shockable rhythm (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.5–10.3; P = 0.005), transient ROSC before ECMO (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1–4.7; P = 0.03), and prehospital ECMO implantation (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.5–5.9; P = 0.002). Conclusions In a population-based registry, 4% of OHCAs were treated with extracorporeal-CPR, which was not associated with increased hospital survival. Early ECMO implantation may improve outcomes. The initial rhythm and ROSC may help select patients for extracorporeal-CPR.

The results of EuReCa ONE highlight that OHCA is still a major public health problem accounting for a substantial number of deaths in Europe. EuReCa ONE very clearly demonstrates marked differences in the processes for data collection and reported outcomes following OHCA all over Europe. Using these data and analyses, different countries, regions, systems, and concepts can benchmark themselves and may learn from each other to further improve survival following one of our major health care events.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare survival among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest as a function of their status for coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN: We performed an observational study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients between March 2020 and December 2020. Coronavirus disease 2019 status (confirmed, suspected, or negative) was defined according to the World Health Organization’s criteria. SETTING: Information on the patients and their care was extracted from the French national out-of-hospital cardiac arrest registry. The French prehospital emergency medical system has two tiers: the fire department intervenes rapidly to provide basic life support, and mobile ICUs provide advanced life support. The study data (including each patient’s coronavirus disease 2019 status) were collected by 95 mobile ICUs throughout France. PATIENTS: We included 6,624 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: 127 cases with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019, 473 with suspected coronavirus disease 2019, and 6,024 negative for coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The “confirmed” and “suspected” groups of coronavirus disease 2019 patients had similar characteristics and were more likely to have suffered an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with a respiratory cause (confirmed: 53.7%, suspected coronavirus disease 2019: 56.5%; p = 0.472) than noncoronavirus disease 2019 patients (14.0%; p < 0.001 vs confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 patients). Advanced life support was initiated for 57.5% of the confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 patients, compared with 64.5% of the suspected coronavirus disease 2019 patients ( p = 0.149) and 70.6% of the noncoronavirus disease 2019 ones ( p = 0.002). The survival rate at 30-day postout-of-hospital cardiac arrest was 0% in the confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 group, 0.9% in the suspected coronavirus disease 2019 group ( p = 0.583 vs confirmed), and 3.5% ( p = 0.023) in the noncoronavirus disease 2019 group. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted a zero survival rate in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019. This finding raises important questions with regard to the futility of resuscitation for coronavirus disease 2019 patients and the management of the associated risks.

This study shows strong geographical variations in CA incidence and a statistically significant relationship between over-incidence and social deprivation variables.