ArticleJournal of intensive care2026
Impact of a clinical decision protocol on survival and neurological outcome following extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) can improve survival in patients with refractory cardiac arrest (CA). However, defining optimal selection criteria for ECPR remains a major challenge.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed all ECPR treatments for refractory in-hospital CA (IHCA) and out-of-hospital CA (OHCA) in adult patients from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2024 at our tertiary 35-bed Intensive Care Unit. Before July 2017 (Period 1), ECPR was implemented at physician discretion. From July 2017 (Period 2), a dedicated protocol recommended physicians to implement ECPR based on four criteria: age < 70 years, shockable rhythm, no-flow duration < 5 min, and total low-flow duration < 80 min. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcome was good neurological outcome at 3 months, defined by a cerebral performance category (CPC) score of 1 or 2.
resultsA total of 166 patients (45 in period 1, 121 in period 2), including 80 IHCAs and 86 OHCAs, were included. The proportion of patients fulfilling the 4 criteria was low yet significantly greater in period 2 than in period 1 (35.0 vs. 17.8%, p = 0.027). Hospital survival was improved in period 2 (26.5% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.015), whereas good neurological outcome was not (14.9 vs. 6.7%, p = 0.157). When evaluating the impact of the 4 criteria over the whole study period, patients with 4 criteria vs. those with < 4 criteria displayed marked improvements in survival (48.0 vs. 9.6%, p < 0.001) and good neurological outcome (30.0 vs. 5.2%, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, only the simultaneous presence of the 4 criteria was independently associated with a decreased risk of death (OR = 0.11, 95% CI 0.01-0.87, p = 0.037), whereas no single criterion alone was significantly predictive.
conclusionImplementing a clinical ECPR protocol in our institutional practice improved meaningful survival in patients with refractory IHCA and OHCA fulfilling four predefined criteria including an age < 70 years, a shockable rhythm, a no-flow < 5 min, and a low-flow < 80 min.
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.