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.

Extracorporeal life support in cardiac arrest: a post hoc Bayesian re-analysis of the INCEPTION trial.

AIMS: Previously, we performed the multicentre INCEPTION trial, randomizing patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) to extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) or conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR). Frequentist analysis showed no statistically significant treatment effect for the primary outcome; 30-day survival with a favourable neurologic outcome (cerebral performance category score of 1-2). To facilitate a probabilistic interpretation of the results, we present a Bayesian re-analysis of the INCEPTION trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed survival with a favourable neurologic outcome at 30 days and 6 months under a minimally informative prior in the intention-to-treat population. Effect sizes are presented as absolute risk differences (ARDs) and relative risks (RRs), with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). We estimated posterior probabilities at various thresholds, including the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) (5% ARD), based on expert consensus, and performed sensitivity analyses under sceptical and literature-based priors. The mean ARD for 30-day survival with a favourable neurologic outcome was 3.6% (95% CrI -9.5-16.7%), favouring ECPR, with a median RR of 1.22 (95% CrI 0.59-2.51). The posterior probability of an MCID was 42% at 30 days and 42% at 6 months, in favour of ECPR. CONCLUSION: Bayesian re-analysis of the INCEPTION trial estimated a 42% probability of an MCID between ECPR and CCPR in refractory OHCA in terms of 30-day survival with a favourable neurologic outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03101787, registered 5 April 2017).

Early extracorporeal CPR for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - A pre-planned per-protocol analysis of the INCEPTION-trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains inconclusive. Recently, the INCEPTION-trial, comparing extracorporeal with conventional CPR, found no statistically significant difference in neurologically favorable survival. Since protocol deviations were anticipated, a pre-specified per-protocol analysis was foreseen. METHODS: The per-protocol analysis of the INCEPTION trial excluded patients not meeting inclusion or exclusion criteria, amongst which time-to-cannulation of >60 minutes, and achieving a return of spontaneous circulation before hospital arrival. Crossovers were excluded as well. The primary outcome (30-day survival in a neurologically favorable condition; cerebral performance category [CPC] 1-2) was primarily analyzed under a frequentist statistical framework. In addition, Bayesian analysis under a minimally informative prior was performed. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were included in the per-protocol analysis (extracorporeal CPR n = 33, conventional CPR n = 48). Thirty-day survival with CPC1-2 was 15% in the extracorporeal CPR group versus 9% in the conventional CPR group (adjusted OR 1.9; 95% CI 0.4-9.3; p-value 0.393). Bayesian analysis showed an 84% posterior probability of any ECPR benefit and a 61% posterior probability of a 5% absolute risk reduction for the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: A pre-planned, pre-specified per-protocol analysis of the INCEPTION-trial, found a higher survival with favorable neurological in patients undergoing ECPR versus CCPR for refractory shockable OHCA. This difference did not reach statistical significance, but results should be interpreted with care, in the light of the small remaining sample size.

Prognostic factors associated with favourable functional outcome among adult patients requiring extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), has demonstrated promise in the management of refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, evidence from observational studies and clinical trials are conflicting and the factors influencing outcome have not been well established. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis summarizing the association between pre-ECPR prognostic factors and likelihood of good functional outcome among adult patients requiring ECPR for OHCA. We searched Medline and Embase databases from inception to February 28, 2023 and screened studies with two independent reviewers. We performed meta-analyses of unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios, adjusted hazard ratios and mean differences separately. We assessed risk of bias using the QUIPS tool and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. FINDINGS: We included 29 observational and randomized studies involving 7,397 patients. Factors with moderate or high certainty of association with increased survival with favourable functional outcome include pre-arrest patient factors, such as younger age (odds ratio (OR) 2.13, 95% CI 1.52 to 2.99) and female sex (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.70), as well as intra-arrest factors, such as shockable rhythm (OR 2.79, 95% CI 2.04 to 3.80), witnessed arrest (OR 1.68 (95% CI 1.16 to 2.42), bystander CPR (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.01), return of spontaneous circulation (OR 2.81, 95% CI 2.19 to 3.61) and shorter time to cannulation (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.69 per 10 minutes). INTERPRETATION: The findings of this review confirm several clinical concepts wellestablished in the cardiac arrest literature and their applicability to the patient for whom ECPR is considered - that is, the impact of pre-existing patient factors, the benefit of timely and effective CPR, as well as the prognostic importance of minimizing low-flow time. We advocate for the thoughtful consideration of these prognostic factors as part of a risk stratification framework when evaluating a patient's potential candidacy for ECPR.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - current status.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an emerging treatment for refractory cardiac arrest. In recent years, several randomized controlled trials have been published that aimed to address the efficacy and effectiveness of ECPR for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Despite the lack of high-quality evidence concerning clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, ECPR is increasingly implemented throughout the world. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the current status of ECPR for OHCA. RECENT FINDINGS: Randomized controlled trials showed diverging results, largely due to differences in selection criteria and study design. Single-center studies, performed in centers with extraordinary expertise and dedication consistently achieve a low-flow time of around 60 min, but such achievements are rarely reproduced outside these centers. Strict patient selection can improve outcome but simultaneously limits the caseload. Preliminary data suggest that outcome may also be improved by avoiding hyperoxia postresuscitation. SUMMARY: The potential of ECPR to increase survival in selected patients in highly dedicated systems seems to be proven, the question remains whether ECPR for OHCA can be widely implemented successfully and can develop into a sustainable, commonplace resource-effective treatment.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for refractory OHCA: lessons from three randomized controlled trials-the trialists' view.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation is a promising treatment for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Three recent randomized trials (ARREST trial, Prague OHCA study, and INCEPTION trial) that addressed the clinical benefit of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest yielded seemingly diverging results. The evidence for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, derived from three recent randomized controlled trials, is not contradictory but rather complementary. Excellent results can be achieved with a very high level of dedication, provided that strict selection criteria are applied. However, pragmatic implementation of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation does not necessarily lead to improved outcome of refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Centres that are performing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or aspire to do so should critically evaluate whether they are able to meet the pre-requisites that are needed to conduct an effective extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation programme.

Early Extracorporeal CPR for Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) restores perfusion and oxygenation in a patient who does not have spontaneous circulation. The evidence with regard to the effect of extracorporeal CPR on survival with a favorable neurologic outcome in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is inconclusive. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted in the Netherlands, we assigned patients with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive extracorporeal CPR or conventional CPR (standard advanced cardiac life support). Eligible patients were between 18 and 70 years of age, had received bystander CPR, had an initial ventricular arrhythmia, and did not have a return of spontaneous circulation within 15 minutes after CPR had been initiated. The primary outcome was survival with a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 or 2 (range, 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) at 30 days. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Of the 160 patients who underwent randomization, 70 were assigned to receive extracorporeal CPR and 64 to receive conventional CPR; 26 patients who did not meet the inclusion criteria at hospital admission were excluded. At 30 days, 14 patients (20%) in the extracorporeal-CPR group were alive with a favorable neurologic outcome, as compared with 10 patients (16%) in the conventional-CPR group (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.5 to 3.5; P = 0.52). The number of serious adverse events per patient was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, extracorporeal CPR and conventional CPR had similar effects on survival with a favorable neurologic outcome. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and Maquet Cardiopulmonary [Getinge]; INCEPTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03101787.).

Ethics of ECPR research.

The design of emergency medicine trials can raise several ethical concerns - risks may be greater, and randomisation may have to occur before consent. Research in emergency medicine is thus an illuminating context to explore the interplay between risk and randomisation, and the consequences for consent. Using a currently running trial, we describe possible concerns, considerations, and solutions to reconcile the conflicting interests of scientific inquiry, ethical principles, and clinical reality in emergency medicine research.

Early initiation of extracorporeal life support in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Design and rationale of the INCEPTION trial.

Return of spontaneous circulation occurs in less than 10% of patients with cardiac arrest undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for more than 15 minutes. Studies suggest that extracorporeal life support during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) improves survival rate in these patients. These studies, however, are hampered by their non-randomized, observational design and are mostly single-center. A multicenter, randomized controlled trial is urgently warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of ECPR. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that early initiation of ECPR in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) improves the survival rate with favorable neurological status. STUDY DESIGN: The INCEPTION trial is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter trial that will randomly allocate 110 patients to either continued CPR or ECPR in a 1:1 ratio. Patients eligible for inclusion are adults (≤ 70 years) with witnessed OHCA presenting with an initial rhythm of ventricular fibrillation (VF) or ventricular tachycardia (VT), who received bystander basic life support and who fail to achieve sustained return of spontaneous circulation within 15 minutes of cardiopulmonary resuscitation by emergency medical services. The primary endpoint of the study is 30-day survival rate with favorable neurological status, defined as 1 or 2 on the Cerebral Performance Category score. The secondary endpoints include 3, 6 and 12-month survival rate with favorable neurological status and the cost-effectiveness of ECPR compared to CCPR. SUMMARY: The INCEPTION trial aims to determine the clinical benefit for the use of ECPR in patients with refractory OHCA presenting with VF/VT. Additionally, the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of ECPR will be evaluated.