Two-year survival and neurological outcome of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients rescued by extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) has been proved in short-term follow-up studies. However, the benefit of E-CPR beyond 1 year has been not known. We investigated 2-year outcome of patients who received E-CPR or conventional CPR (C-CPR). METHODS: We analyzed a total of 406 adult in-hospital cardiac arrest victims who underwent CPR for more than 10 min from 2003 to 2009. The two-year survival and neurological outcome of E-CPR (n=85) and C-CPR (n=321) were compared using propensity score-matched analysis. RESULTS: The 2-year survival with minimal neurological impairment was 4-fold higher in the E-CPR group than the C-CPR group (23.5% versus 5.9%, hazard ratio (HR)=0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.43-0.75, p<0.001) by unadjusted analysis. After propensity-score matching, it was still 4-fold higher in the E-CPR group than the C-CPR group (20.0% versus 5.0%, HR=0.53, 95% CI=0.36-0.80, p=0.002). In the E-CPR group, the independent predictors associated with minimal neurological impairment were age ≤65 years (HR=0.46; 95% CI=0.26-0.81; p=0.008), CPR duration ≤35 min (HR=0.37; 95% CI=0.18-0.76; p=0.007), and subsequent cardiovascular intervention including coronary intervention or cardiac surgery (HR=0.36; 95% CI=0.18-0.68; p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The initial survival benefit of E-CPR for cardiac arrest patients persisted at 2 years.

Outcome of in-hospital adult cardiopulmonary resuscitation assisted with portable auto-priming percutaneous cardiopulmonary support.

BACKGROUND: Outcome from in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is still unsatisfactory. CPR assisted with percutaneous cardiopulmonary support (PCPS) is expected to improve the outcome of in-hospital CPR. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 83 consecutive cases of adult in-hospital CPR assisted by a portable pre-assembled auto-priming PCPS system (EBS, Terumo, Japan) from January 2004 to December 2007. RESULTS: PCPS was successfully performed in 97.6% of the patients and could be weaned in 57.8% of the patients. The survival-to-discharge rate was 41.0% with an acceptable neurological status in 85.3% of the patients. The 6-month survival was 38.6%. Survival-to-discharge decreased about 1% for each 1 min increase in the duration of CPR. The probability of survival was about 65%, 45%, and 19% when the duration of CPR was 10, 30, or 60 min, respectively. Multivariate analysis adjusted with clinical factors including organ dysfunction severity scores revealed that defibrillation and CPR duration less than 35 min were independent predictors for both survival-to-discharge (odds ratio=8.0, 95% CI=2.8-23.0, p<0.001) and 6-month survival (hazard ratio=3.3, 95% CI=1.9-5.9, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that CPR assisted with PCPS results in an acceptable survival-to-discharge rate and mid-term prognosis.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients with inhospital cardiac arrest: A comparison with conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether the survival of patients with inhospital cardiac arrest could be extended by extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation compared with those of conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. DESIGN: : A retrospective, single-center, observational study. SETTING: A tertiary care university hospital. PATIENTS: We retrospectively analyzed a total of 406 adult patients with witnessed inhospital cardiac arrest receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation for >10 mins from January 2003 to June 2009 (85 in the extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation group and 321 in the conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation group). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point was a survival discharge with minimal neurologic impairment. Propensity score matching was used to balance the baseline characteristics and cardiopulmonary resuscitation variables that could potentially affect prognosis. In the matched population (n = 120), the survival discharge rate with minimal neurologic impairment in the extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation group was significantly higher than that in the conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation group (odds ratio of mortality or significant neurologic deficit, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.68; p = .012). In addition, there was a significant difference in the 6-month survival rates with minimal neurologic impairment (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.77; p = .003; p <.001 by stratified log-rank test). In the subgroup based on cardiac origin, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation also showed benefits for survival discharge (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.82; p = .026) and 6-month survival with minimal neurologic impairment (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.97; p = .038; p = .013 by stratified log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation showed a survival benefit over conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation for >10 mins after witnessed inhospital arrest, especially in cases with cardiac origins.