MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation as a standard of care in the future: a literature review

2023· review· en· W4386751202 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vashistha M Patel, Shreya Patel, Rayan Saab, Kalyan Prudhvi, Miles Cobia, Allison Rogers, Alanna Cole

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitationMedicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationExtracorporealIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEmergency medicineResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> The use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is limited generally to situations where traditional CPR failed to restore a patient's heart rhythm. Although ECPR is not regarded as the standard of care for cardiac arrest patients, it might be a more effective treatment for some forms of cardiac arrest. This literature review explores the efficacy of ECPR as a potential standard of care for cardiac arrest in the future. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> English language publications fulfilling eligibility criteria from 2010 to 2023 were found through a literature search using four electronic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and IEEE Explore). Articles were included in this literature review for fulfilling following criteria: empirical primary studies evaluating ECPR in human subjects with either IHCA or OHCA; articles published in English between 2010 and 2023; articles exploring ECPR in cardiac arrest across all ages of patients. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results</ns4:bold> : 12 studies out of 1,092 search results met the inclusion criteria for data extraction and synthesis. Data extracted included the efficacy of ECPR in both IHCA and OHCA patients based on the PICO framework. The quality of study done by NOS (Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies) resulted in three studies with moderate quality while nine were of high quality. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> ECPR was associated with neurologically intact survival with favorable neurological outcomes compared to a standard CRP for cardiac arrest patients. This study also demonstrates that, at the moment, ECPR is the most successful in centers with a well-trained multidisciplinary ECMO team of experts. On the other hand, cardiac arrest patients in semi-rural areas and underdeveloped locations are likely to benefit less from ECPR interventions due to the lack of necessary ECPR expertise and infrastructure. Those individuals eligible for ECPR benefit from better neurological outcomes and associated higher survival rates. </ns4:p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.372 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207