loading page

Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ECPR) by Cause of Cardiac Arrest
  • +4
  • Lucas Marinacci,
  • Nino Mihatov,
  • David D'Alessandro,
  • Mauricio Villavicencio,
  • Nathali Roy,
  • Yuval Raz,
  • Sunu Thomas
Lucas Marinacci
Massachusetts General Hospital
Author Profile
Nino Mihatov
Massachusetts General Hospital
Author Profile
David D'Alessandro
Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School
Author Profile
Mauricio Villavicencio
Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School
Author Profile
Nathali Roy
Boston Children's Hospital
Author Profile
Yuval Raz
Massachusetts General Hospital
Author Profile
Sunu Thomas
Massachusetts General Hospital
Author Profile

Peer review status:IN REVISION

23 Jun 2020Submitted to Journal of Cardiac Surgery
23 Jun 2020Assigned to Editor
23 Jun 2020Submission Checks Completed
27 Jun 2020Reviewer(s) Assigned
19 Jul 2020Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
01 Aug 2020Editorial Decision: Revise Major

Abstract

Background: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has emerged as a rescue strategy for non-responders to conventional CPR (CCPR) in cardiac arrest. Definitive guidelines for ECPR deployment do not exist. Prior studies suggest that arrest rhythm and cardiac origin of arrest may be variables used to assess candidacy for ECPR. Aim: To describe a single center experience with ECPR and to assess associations between survival and physician-adjudicated origin of arrest and arrest rhythm. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent ECPR at a quaternary care center over a 7-year period was performed. Demographic and clinical characteristics were extracted from the medical record and used to adjudicate origin of cardiac arrest, etiology, rhythm, survival, and outcomes. Univariate analysis was performed to determine association of patient and arrest characteristics with survival. Results: Between 2010 and 2017, 47 cardiac arrest patients were initiated on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) at the time of active CPR. ECPR patient survival to hospital discharge was 25.5% (n=12). Twenty-six patients died on ECMO (55.3%) while 9 patients (19.1%) survived decannulation but died prior to discharge. Neither physician-adjudicated arrest rhythm nor underlying origin were significantly associated with survival to discharge, either alone or in combination. Younger age and arresting in the emergency department were significantly associated with survival. Nearly all survivors experienced myocardial recovery and left the hospital with a good neurological status. Conclusions: Arrest rhythm and etiology may be insufficient predictors of survival in ECPR utilization. Further studies are needed to determine evidenced based criteria for ECPR deployment.