Percutaneous cannulation is associated with lower rate of severe neurological complication in femoro-femoral ECPR: results from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous cannulation is now accepted as the first-line strategy for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in adults. However, previous studies comparing percutaneous cannulation to surgical cannulation have been limited by small sample size and single-center settings. This study aimed to compare in-hospital outcomes in cardiac arrest (CA) patients who received femoro-femoral ECPR with percutaneous vs surgical cannulation. METHODS: Adults with refractory CA treated with percutaneous (percutaneous group) or surgical (surgical group) femoro-femoral ECPR between January 2008 and December 2019 were extracted from the international Extracorporeal Life Support Organization registry. The primary outcome was severe neurological complication. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the association between percutaneous cannulation and in-hospital outcomes. RESULTS: Among 3575 patients meeting study inclusion, 2749 (77%) underwent percutaneous cannulation. The proportion of patients undergoing percutaneous cannulation increased from 18% to 89% over the study period (p < 0.001 for trend). Severe neurological complication (13% vs 19%; p < 0.001) occurred less frequently in the percutaneous group compared to the surgical group. In adjusted analyses, percutaneous cannulation was independently associated with lower rate of severe neurological complication (odds ratio [OR] 0.62; 95% CI 0.46-0.83; p = 0.002), similar rates of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.73-1.17; p = 0.522), limb ischemia (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.58-1.20; p = 0.341) and cannulation site bleeding (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.66-1.22; p = 0.471). The comparison of outcomes provided similar results across different levels of center percutaneous experience or center ECPR volume. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults receiving ECPR, percutaneous cannulation was associated with probable lower rate of severe neurological complication, and similar rates of in-hospital mortality, limb ischemia and cannulation site bleeding.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".