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 compare commonly used selection criteria and their effect 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 met the most restrictive criteria versus 73/95 (76.8%) with the most liberal criteria. Similarly, in IHCA, the most restrictive criteria would have resulted in a higher survival rate in eligible patients 10/15 (66.7%) compared to 27/59 (45.8%) with the most liberal criteria. With all criteria a large portion of survivors in IHCA would not have been eligible for ECMO if strictly applying criteria, 33/43 (77%) with restrictive and 16/43 (37%) with the most liberal 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 IHCA ECPR patients.
Keywords: Cardiac arrest; ECMO; ECPR; Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; In-hospital cardiac arrest; Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
© 2023. Crown.