Demers Simon-Pierre, Cournoyer Alexis, Dagher Olina, Noly Pierre-Emmanuel, Ducharme Anique, Ly Hung, Albert Martin, Serri Karim, Cavayas Yiorgos Alexandros, Ben Ali Walid, Lamarche Yoan
Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Department of Cardiology, Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Jan 5;10:1315548. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2023.1315548. eCollection 2023.
In the past two decades, extracorporeal resuscitation (ECPR) has been increasingly used in the management of refractory cardiac arrest (CA) patients. Decision algorithms have been used to guide the care such patients, but the effectiveness of such decision-making tools is not well described. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of survival with a good neurologic outcome of patients treated with ECPR meeting all criteria of a clinical decision-making tool for the initiation of ECPR to those for whom ECPR was implemented outside of the algorithm.
All patients who underwent E-CPR between January 2014 and December 2021 at the Montreal Heart Institute were included in this retrospective analysis. We dichotomized the cohort according to adherence or non-adherence with the ECPR decision-making tool, which included the following criteria: age ≤65 years, initial shockable rhythm, no-flow time <5 min, serum lactate <13 mmol/L. Patients were included in the "IN" group when they met all criteria of the decision-making tool and in the "OUT" group when at least one criterion was not met.
The primary outcome was survival with intact neurological status at 30 days, defined by a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) Scale 1 and 2.
A total of 41 patients (IN group, = 11; OUT group, = 30) were included. A total of 4 (36%) patients met the primary outcome in the IN group and 7 (23%) in the OUT group [odds ratio (OR): 1.88 (95% CI, 0.42-8.34); = 0.45]. However, survival with a favorable outcome decreased steadily with 2 or more deviations from the decision-making tool [2 deviations: 1 (11%); 3 deviations: 0 (0%)].
Most patients supported with ECPR fell outside of the criteria encompassed in a clinical decision-making tool, which highlights the challenge of optimal selection of ECPR candidates. Survival rate with a good neurologic outcome did not differ between the IN and OUT groups. However, survival with favorable outcome decreased steadily after one deviation from the decision-making tool. More studies are needed to help select proper candidates with refractory CA patients for ECPR.
在过去二十年中,体外心肺复苏(ECPR)越来越多地用于难治性心脏骤停(CA)患者的治疗。决策算法已被用于指导此类患者的护理,但此类决策工具的有效性尚未得到充分描述。本研究的目的是比较符合ECPR启动临床决策工具所有标准的ECPR治疗患者与在算法之外接受ECPR治疗患者的良好神经功能预后生存率。
纳入2014年1月至2021年12月在蒙特利尔心脏研究所接受ECPR的所有患者进行这项回顾性分析。我们根据是否符合ECPR决策工具将队列分为两组,该决策工具包括以下标准:年龄≤65岁、初始可电击心律、无血流时间<5分钟、血清乳酸<13 mmol/L。符合决策工具所有标准的患者纳入“IN”组,至少一项标准未满足的患者纳入“OUT”组。
主要结局是30天时神经功能完好的生存,由脑功能分类(CPC)量表1和2定义。
共纳入41例患者(IN组,n = 11;OUT组,n = 30)。IN组共有4例(36%)患者达到主要结局,OUT组有7例(23%)[优势比(OR):1.88(95%CI,0.42 - 8.34);P = 0.45]。然而,与决策工具存在2个或更多偏差时,良好结局的生存率稳步下降[2个偏差:1例(11%);3个偏差:0例(0%)]。
大多数接受ECPR支持的患者不在临床决策工具所涵盖的标准范围内,这凸显了优化选择ECPR候选者的挑战。IN组和OUT组之间良好神经功能预后的生存率没有差异。然而,与决策工具存在一次偏差后,良好结局生存率稳步下降。需要更多研究来帮助为难治性CA患者选择合适的ECPR候选者。