Extracorporeal Versus Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Propensity Score Matching Cohort Study

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Comparing the effects of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) on outcomes in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) in China. The benefits of ECPR over CCPR in patients with IHCA remain controversial. DESIGN: This article analyzed data from the BASeline Investigation of In-hospital Cardiac Arrest (BASIC-IHCA) study, which consecutively enrolled patients with IHCA from July 1, 2019, to December 31, 2020. Patients who received ECPR were selected as the case group and matched with patients who received CCPR as the control group by propensity score at a ratio of 1:4. A parallel questionnaire survey of participating hospitals was conducted, to collect data on ECPR cases from January 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021. The primary outcome was survival to discharge or 30-day survival. SETTING: We included 39 hospitals across 31 provinces in China. PATIENTS: Patients receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation and without contraindications to ECPR were selected from the BASIC-IHCA database. Patients older than 75 years, not witnessed, or with cardiopulmonary resuscitation duration less than 10 min were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 4853 patients met the inclusion criteria before matching, with 34 undergoing ECPR (median age, 56.5 yr; 67.65% male) and 4819 underwent CCPR (median age, 59 yr; 64.52% male). There were 132 patients receiving CCPR and 33 patients receiving ECPR who were eventually matched. The ECPR group had significantly higher survival rates at discharge or 30-day survival (21.21% vs. 7.58%, p = 0.048). The ECPR group had significantly lower mortality rates (hazard ratio 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.91) than the CCPR group at discharge or 30 days. Besides the BASIC-IHCA study, the volume of ECPR implementations and the survival rate of patients with ECPR (29.4% vs. 10.4%. p = 0.004) in participating hospitals significantly improved. CONCLUSIONS: ECPR may be beneficial compared with CCPR for patient survival after IHCA and should be considered for eligible patients with IHCA.