Pulseless Electrical Activity and Asystole: Disentangling the ‘Nonshockable’ Rhythms

Andrea, Luke; Colvin, Mai; Shiloh, Arieil L.; Grossestreuer, Anne V.; Berg, Katherine M.; Gong, Michelle N.; Moskowitz, Ari

doi:10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2022.205.1_meetingabstracts.a4320

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(7,10,11) Similarly, the cardiac arrest characteristics of in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) may differ greatly from out of hospital populations. (12,13) There is also uncertainty how the variation in selection criteria impacts patient outcomes. Conceptually, liberal inclusion criteria result in more patients being included, but lower survival rates for the program, while restrictive criteria would result in less patients being included but higher survival rates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of restrictive vs liberal selection criteria on survival in ECPR: A retrospective analysis of a multi-regional dataset.

Diehl,

Dennis,

Read

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an established rescue therapy for both out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). However, there remains significant heterogeneity in populations and outcomes across different studies. The primary aim of this study was to assess the effect of applying different selection criteria on survival and utilisation in an Australian ECPR cohort. Methods We performed a retrospective, observational study of three established ECPR centres in Australia, including cases from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020 to establish the baseline cohort. We applied five commonly used ECPR selection criteria, ranging from restrictive to liberal. Results The baseline cohort included 199 ECPR cases: 95 OHCA and 104 IHCA patients. Survival to hospital discharge was 20% for OHCA and 41.4% for IHCA. For OHCA patients, strictly applying the most restrictive criteria would have resulted in the highest survival rate 7/16 (43.8%) compared to the most liberal criteria 16/73 (21.9%). However, only 16/95 (16.8%) in our cohort strictly meeting criteria with restrictive criteria versus 73/95 (76.8%) with liberal. Similarly, in IHCA, more restrictive criteria would have resulted in a higher survival rate in eligible patients 10/15 (66.7%) vs 27/59 (45.8%) compared to more liberal criteria; 33/43 (77%) and 16/43 (37%) of survivors, respectively, would not have been eligible for ECMO if strictly applying these selection criteria. Conclusions Adherence to different selection criteria impacts both the ECPR survival rate and the total number of survivors. Commonly used selection criteria may be unsuitable to select ICHA ECPR patients.

show abstract