The Prognostic Value of Troponin-T in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Without ST-Segment Elevation: A COACT Substudy.

Background: In out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without ST-elevation, predictive markers that can identify those with a high risk of acute coronary syndrome are lacking. Methods: In this post hoc analysis of the Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest (COACT) trial, the baseline, median, peak, and time-concentration curves of troponin-T (cTnT) (T-AUC) in OHCA patients without ST-elevation were studied. cTnT values were obtained at predefined time points at 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 36, 28, and 72 hours after admission. All patients who died within the measurement period were not included. The primary outcome was the association between cTnT and 90-day survival. Secondary outcomes included the association of cTnT and acute thrombotic occlusions, acute unstable lesions, and left ventricular function. Results: In total, 352 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 64 ± 13 years (80.4% men). All cTnT measures were independent prognostic factors for mortality after adjustment for potential confounders age, sex, history of coronary artery disease, witnessed arrest, time to BLS, and time to return of spontaneous circulation (eg, for T-AUC: hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.06-1.94; P = .02; P value for all variables ≤.02). Median cTnT (odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.18-2.12; P = .002) and T-AUC (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.25-3.29; P = .004) were independent predictors for acute unstable lesions. Median cTnT (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.17-2.23; P = .003) and T-AUC (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.27-3.68; P = .004) were independent predictors for acute thrombotic occlusions. CTnT values were not associated with the left ventricular function (eg, for T-AUC: OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 0.65-6.19; P = .22; P value for all variables ≥.14). Conclusion: In OHCA patients without ST-segment elevation, cTnT release during the first 72 hours after return of spontaneous circulation was associated with clinical outcomes.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus standard treatment for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a Bayesian meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of several randomized trials on extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were examined using frequentist methods, resulting in a dichotomous interpretation of results based on p-values rather than in the probability of clinically relevant treatment effects. To determine such a probability of a clinically relevant ECPR-based treatment effect on neurological outcomes, the authors of these trials performed a Bayesian meta-analysis of the totality of randomized ECPR evidence. METHODS: A systematic search was applied to three electronic databases. Randomized trials that compared ECPR-based treatment with conventional CPR for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. The study was preregistered in INPLASY (INPLASY2023120060). The primary Bayesian hierarchical meta-analysis estimated the difference in 6-month neurologically favorable survival in patients with all rhythms, and a secondary analysis assessed this difference in patients with shockable rhythms (Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model). Primary Bayesian analyses were performed under vague priors. Outcomes were formulated as estimated median relative risks, mean absolute risk differences, and numbers needed to treat with corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The posterior probabilities of various clinically relevant absolute risk difference thresholds were estimated. RESULTS: Three randomized trials were included in the analysis (ECPR, n = 209 patients; conventional CPR, n = 211 patients). The estimated median relative risk of ECPR for 6-month neurologically favorable survival was 1.47 (95%CrI 0.73-3.32) with a mean absolute risk difference of 8.7% (- 5.0; 42.7%) in patients with all rhythms, and the median relative risk was 1.54 (95%CrI 0.79-3.71) with a mean absolute risk difference of 10.8% (95%CrI - 4.2; 73.9%) in patients with shockable rhythms. The posterior probabilities of an absolute risk difference > 0% and > 5% were 91.0% and 71.1% in patients with all rhythms and 92.4% and 75.8% in patients with shockable rhythms, respectively. CONCLUSION: The current Bayesian meta-analysis found a 71.1% and 75.8% posterior probability of a clinically relevant ECPR-based treatment effect on 6-month neurologically favorable survival in patients with all rhythms and shockable rhythms. These results must be interpreted within the context of the reported credible intervals and varying designs of the randomized trials. REGISTRATION: INPLASY (INPLASY2023120060, December 14th, 2023, https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2023.12.0060 ).

Health-related quality of life one year after refractory cardiac arrest treated with conventional or extracorporeal CPR; a secondary analysis of the INCEPTION-trial.

Background: Prospective, trial-based data comparing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients surviving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) through extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) or conventional CPR (CCPR) are scarce. We aimed to determine HRQoL during 1-year after refractory OHCA in patients treated with ECPR and CCPR. Methods: We present a secondary analysis of the multicenter INCEPTION-trial, which studied the effectiveness of ECPR versus CCPR in patients with refractory OHCA. HRQoL was prospectively assessed using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Poor HRQoL was pragmatically defined as an EQ-5D-5L health utility index (HUI) > 1 SD below the age-adjusted norm. We used mixed linear models to assess the difference in HRQoL over time and univariable analyses to assess factors potentially associated with poor HRQoL. Results: A total of 134 patients were enrolled, and hospital survival was 20% (27 patients). EQ-5D-5L data were available for 25 patients (5 ECPR and 20 CCPR). One year after OHCA, the estimated mean HUI was 0.73 (0.05) in all patients, 0.84 (0.12) in ECPR survivors, and 0.71 (0.05) in CCPR survivors (p-value 0.31). Eight (32%) survivors had a poor HRQoL. HRQoL was good in 17 (68%) patients, with 100% in ECPR survivors versus 60% in CCPR survivors (p-value 0.14). Conclusion: One year after refractory OHCA, 68% of the survivors had a good HRQoL. We found no statistically significant difference in HRQoL one year after OHCA in patients treated with ECPR compared to CCPR. However, numerical differences may be clinically relevant in favor of ECPR.

Favorable resuscitation characteristics in patients undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A secondary analysis of the INCEPTION-trial.

Introduction: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is increasingly used as a supportive treatment for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Still, there is a paucity of data evaluating favorable and unfavorable prognostic characteristics in patients considered for ECPR. Methods: We performed a previously unplanned post-hoc analysis of the multicenter randomized controlled INCEPTION-trial. The study group consisted of patients receiving ECPR, irrespective of initial group randomization. The patients were divided into favorable survivors (cerebral performance category [CPC] 1-2) and unfavorable or non-survivors (CPC 3-5). Results: In the initial INCEPTION-trial, 134 patients were randomized. ECPR treatment was started in 46 (66%) of 70 patients in the ECPR treatment arm and 3 (4%) of 74 patients in the conventional treatment arm. No statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics, medical history, or causes of arrest were observed between survivors (n = 5) and non-survivors (n = 44). More patients in the surviving group had a shockable rhythm at the time of cannulation (60% vs. 14%, p = 0.037), underwent more defibrillation attempts (13 vs. 6, p = 0.002), and received higher dosages of amiodarone (450 mg vs 375 mg, p = 0.047) despite similar durations of resuscitation maneuvers. Furthermore, non-survivors more frequently had post-ECPR implantation adverse events. Conclusion: The persistence of ventricular arrhythmia is a favorable prognostic factor in patients with refractory OHCA undergoing an ECPR-based treatment. Future studies are warranted to confirm this finding and to establish additional prognostic factors.Clinical trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT03101787.

Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs. conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a pre-planned, trial-based economic evaluation.

AIMS: When out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) becomes refractory, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a potential option to restore circulation and improve the patient's outcome. However, ECPR requires specific materials and highly skilled personnel, and it is unclear whether increased survival and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) justify these costs. METHODS AND RESULTS: This cost-effectiveness study was part of the INCEPTION study, a multi-centre, pragmatic randomized trial comparing hospital-based ECPR to conventional CPR (CCPR) in patients with refractory OHCA in 10 cardiosurgical centres in the Netherlands. We analysed healthcare costs in the first year and measured HRQOL using the EQ-5D-5L at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost-effectiveness planes, and acceptability curves were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed for per-protocol and as-treated subgroups as well as imputed productivity loss in deceased patients. In total, 132 patients were enrolled: 62 in the CCPR and 70 in the ECPR group. The difference in mean costs after 1 year was €5109 (95% confidence interval -7264 to 15 764). Mean quality-adjusted life year (QALY) after 1 year was 0.15 in the ECPR group and 0.11 in the CCPR group, resulting in an ICER of €121 643 per additional QALY gained. The acceptability curve shows that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80.000, the probability of ECPR being cost-effective compared with CCPR is 36%. Sensitivity analysis showed increasing ICER in the per-protocol and as-treated groups and lower probabilities of acceptance. CONCLUSION: Hospital-based ECPR in refractory OHCA has a low probability of being cost-effective in a trial-based economic evaluation.