ReviewResuscitation plus2025
Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest in single ventricle patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Singapore Paediatric Life Support Guidelines 2026.Singapore medical journal · 2026Guideline
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Assess the use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), compared with manual/mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in pediatric patients with single ventricle (SV) congenital heart disease (CHD). Methods: PRISMA guidelines were followed with PROSPERO registration (CRD42023479671). We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for studies published before January 23, 2025. The population included pediatric patients (<18 years old) with IHCA. Two investigators reviewed studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the ROBINS-I tool. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Outcomes included short-term and long-term survival and favorable neurological outcome. Results: We identified 20 studies: 15 described ECPR in SV patients without a comparator group, and 5 compared SV ECPR patients vs. SV extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) without ECPR (ECMO non-ECPR). Pooled synthesis for survival to hospital discharge was analyzed in 3 observational studies with 91 SV patients (pooled OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.37-1.01) and separately in 2 registry studies with 968 SV patients (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.35-1.37 and OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.78-1.41) with very low certainty of evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision). These studies found no significant difference in survival to hospital discharge in ECPR compared to ECMO non-ECPR in pediatric SV patients. No studies were identified that compared pediatric SV patients who received ECPR vs. conventional/manual CPR. Conclusions: There is no direct evidence to either support or refute the use of ECPR during IHCA in pediatric patients with SV CHD, and there is inconclusive evidence to either support or refute the use of ECPR compared to ECMO non-ECPR. Additional research is needed to address the use of ECPR in this specific cardiac population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.