Can we predict patient outcome before extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiac arrest?
Emergency department cardiac arrest
Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
In-hospital cardiac arrest
Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
Refractory cardiac arrest
Journal
Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine
ISSN: 1757-7241
Titre abrégé: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101477511
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jun 2020
23 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
24
08
2019
accepted:
08
06
2020
entrez:
25
6
2020
pubmed:
25
6
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Refractory cardiac arrest resistant to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (C-CPR) has a poor outcome. Although previous reports showed that extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) can improve the clinical outcome, there are no clinically applicable predictors of patient outcome that can be used prior to the implementation of E-CPR. We aimed to evaluate the use of clinical factors in patients with refractory cardiac arrest undergoing E-CPR to predict patient outcome in our institution. This is a single-center retrospective study. We report 112 patients presenting with refractory cardiac arrest resistant to C-CPR between January 2012 and November 2017. All patients received E-CPR for continued life support when a cardiogenic etiology was presumed. Clinical factors associated with patient outcome were analyzed. Significant pre-ECMO clinical factors were extracted to build a patient outcome risk prediction model. The overall survival rate at discharge was 40.2, and 30.4% of patients were discharged with good neurologic function. The six-month survival rate after hospital discharge was 36.6, and 25.9% of patients had good neurologic function 6 months after discharge. We stratified the patients into low-risk (n = 38), medium-risk (n = 47), and high-risk groups (n = 27) according to the TLR score (low-flow Time, cardiac arrest Location, and initial cardiac arrest Rhythm) that we derived from pre-ECMO clinical parameters. Compared with the medium-risk and high-risk groups, the low-risk group had better survival at discharge (65.8% vs. 42.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001) and at 6 months (60.5% vs. 38.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.0001). The low-risk group also had a better neurologic outcome at discharge (50% vs. 31.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.0001) and 6 months after discharge (44.7% vs. 25.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.0003) than the medium-risk and high-risk groups. Patients with refractory cardiac arrest receiving E-CPR can be stratified by pre-ECMO clinical factors to predict the clinical outcome. Larger-scale studies are required to validate our observations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Refractory cardiac arrest resistant to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (C-CPR) has a poor outcome. Although previous reports showed that extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) can improve the clinical outcome, there are no clinically applicable predictors of patient outcome that can be used prior to the implementation of E-CPR. We aimed to evaluate the use of clinical factors in patients with refractory cardiac arrest undergoing E-CPR to predict patient outcome in our institution.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a single-center retrospective study. We report 112 patients presenting with refractory cardiac arrest resistant to C-CPR between January 2012 and November 2017. All patients received E-CPR for continued life support when a cardiogenic etiology was presumed. Clinical factors associated with patient outcome were analyzed. Significant pre-ECMO clinical factors were extracted to build a patient outcome risk prediction model.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The overall survival rate at discharge was 40.2, and 30.4% of patients were discharged with good neurologic function. The six-month survival rate after hospital discharge was 36.6, and 25.9% of patients had good neurologic function 6 months after discharge. We stratified the patients into low-risk (n = 38), medium-risk (n = 47), and high-risk groups (n = 27) according to the TLR score (low-flow Time, cardiac arrest Location, and initial cardiac arrest Rhythm) that we derived from pre-ECMO clinical parameters. Compared with the medium-risk and high-risk groups, the low-risk group had better survival at discharge (65.8% vs. 42.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.0001) and at 6 months (60.5% vs. 38.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.0001). The low-risk group also had a better neurologic outcome at discharge (50% vs. 31.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.0001) and 6 months after discharge (44.7% vs. 25.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.0003) than the medium-risk and high-risk groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with refractory cardiac arrest receiving E-CPR can be stratified by pre-ECMO clinical factors to predict the clinical outcome. Larger-scale studies are required to validate our observations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32576294
doi: 10.1186/s13049-020-00753-6
pii: 10.1186/s13049-020-00753-6
pmc: PMC7310513
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
58Subventions
Organisme : Changhua Christian Hospital
ID : 105-CCH-IRP-071
Organisme : Changhua Christian Hospital
ID : 108-CCH-IRP-018
Références
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Aug 29;70(9):1109-1117
pubmed: 28838358
Intensive Care Med. 2016 Mar;42(3):370-378
pubmed: 26825953
Am J Emerg Med. 2014 Aug;32(8):943.e5-6
pubmed: 24560385
Resuscitation. 2018 Sep;130:146-158
pubmed: 30017957
Resuscitation. 2015 Jan;86:88-94
pubmed: 25281189
Crit Care Med. 2010 Jan;38(1):101-8
pubmed: 19770741
Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2009 Feb;28(2):182-90
pubmed: 19232884
Intensive Care Med. 2019 Jan;45(1):44-54
pubmed: 30547322
Intern Med. 2019 May 15;58(10):1391-1397
pubmed: 30713299
Heart Lung. 2018 Nov;47(6):602-609
pubmed: 30119843
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010 May;139(5):1325-32, 1332.e1-2
pubmed: 20412965
Resuscitation. 2019 Apr;137:1-6
pubmed: 30731112
Resuscitation. 2014 Dec;85(12):1713-9
pubmed: 25449345
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Jun 25;172(12):947-53
pubmed: 22641228
Resuscitation. 2015 Jul;92:70-6
pubmed: 25936930
Resuscitation. 2017 Mar;112:1-10
pubmed: 28007504
Eur Heart J. 2015 Sep 1;36(33):2246-56
pubmed: 26033984
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Feb 1;204:70-6
pubmed: 26655543
Am J Emerg Med. 2013 Nov;31(11):1627.e5-6
pubmed: 24055477
Lancet. 2008 Aug 16;372(9638):554-61
pubmed: 18603291
Can J Cardiol. 2018 Feb;34(2):146-155
pubmed: 29249614
Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Mar;33(3):474.e5-6
pubmed: 25218623
Intensive Care Med. 2016 May;42(5):889-896
pubmed: 26942446
Circulation. 2015 Nov 3;132(18 Suppl 2):S436-43
pubmed: 26472994
Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Apr;36(4):637-640
pubmed: 28974370
Resuscitation. 2016 Oct;107:38-46
pubmed: 27523953
Resuscitation. 2014 Nov;85(11):1527-32
pubmed: 25201611
J Clin Med. 2018 Sep 29;7(10):
pubmed: 30274271
Resuscitation. 2013 Oct;84(10):1404-8
pubmed: 23603288
J Crit Care. 2018 Dec;48:15-20
pubmed: 30121514
Circ Res. 2015 Jun 5;116(12):2041-9
pubmed: 26044255
ASAIO J. 2017 Jan/Feb;63(1):60-67
pubmed: 27984321
Am Heart J. 2019 Apr;210:58-68
pubmed: 30738245
J Crit Care. 2017 Dec;42:35-41
pubmed: 28672145
Crit Care. 2016 Oct 22;20(1):336
pubmed: 27769308
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Oct 15;221:741-5
pubmed: 27428314
Resuscitation. 2011 Sep;82(9):1154-61
pubmed: 21641711
Resuscitation. 2014 Sep;85(9):1219-24
pubmed: 24992872
Crit Care. 2017 Jun 22;21(1):157
pubmed: 28637497
Resuscitation. 2017 Dec;121:62-70
pubmed: 29020604
BMC Anesthesiol. 2015 Mar 08;15:26
pubmed: 25774089
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:3505784
pubmed: 28484710
Crit Care. 2019 Jan 28;23(1):27
pubmed: 30691512
Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Jul;70(1):32-40
pubmed: 28139304
Resuscitation. 2008 Aug;78(2):151-60
pubmed: 18508184