Intraarrest transport, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and early invasive management in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an individual patient data pooled analysis of two randomised trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) treated with standard advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) has poor outcomes. Transport to hospital followed by in-hospital extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) initiation may improve outcomes. We performed a pooled individual patient data analysis of two randomised controlled trials evaluating ECPR based approach in OHCA. Methods: The individual patient data from two published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were pooled: ARREST (enrolled Aug 2019-June 2020; NCT03880565) and PRAGUE-OHCA (enrolled March 1, 2013-Oct 25, 2020; NCT01511666). Both trials enrolled patients with refractory OHCA and compared: intra-arrest transport with in-hospital ECPR initiation (invasive approach) versus continued standard ACLS. The primary outcome was 180-day survival with favourable neurological outcome (defined as Cerebral Performance Category 1-2). Secondary outcomes included: cumulative survival at 180 days, 30-day favourable neurological survival, and 30-day cardiac recovery. Risk of bias in each trial was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Heterogeneity was assessed via Forest plots. Findings: The two RCTs included 286 patients. Of those randomised to the invasive (n = 147) and standard (n = 139) groups, respectively: the median age was 57 (IQR 47-65) and 58 years (IQR 48-66), and the median duration of resuscitation was 58 (IQR 43-69) and 49 (IQR 33-71) minutes (p = 0.17). In a modified intention to treat analysis, 45 (32.4%) in the invasive and 29 (19.7%) patients in the standard arm survived to 180 days with a favourable neurological outcome [absolute difference (AD), 95% CI: 12.7%, 2.6-22.7%, p = 0.015]. Forty-seven (33.8%) and 33 (22.4%) patients survived to 180 days [HR 0.59 (0.43-0.81); log rank test p = 0.0009]. At 30 days, 44 (31.7%) and 24 (16.3%) patients had favourable neurological outcome (AD 15.4%, 5.6-25.1%, p = 0.003), 60 (43.2%), and 46 (31.3%) patients had cardiac recovery (AD: 11.9%, 0.7-23%, p = 0.05), in the invasive and standard arms, respectively. The effect was larger in patients presenting with shockable rhythms (AD 18.8%, 7.6-29.4; p = 0.01; HR 2.26 [1.23-4.15]; p = 0.009) and prolonged CPR (>45 min; HR 3.99 (1.54-10.35); p = 0.005). Interpretation: In patients with refractory OHCA, the invasive approach significantly improved 30- and 180-day neurologically favourable survival. Funding: None.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.053 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".