Selection of patients for mechanical circulatory support for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Louise Linde, Sivagowry Rasalingam Mørk, Emilie Gregers, Jo Bønding Andreasen, Jens Flensted Lassen, Hanne Berg Ravn, Henrik Schmidt, Lars Peter Riber, Sisse Anette Thomassen, Helle Laugesen, Hans Eiskjær, Christian Juhl Terkelsen, Steffen Christensen, Mariann Tang, Hasse Moeller-Soerensen, Lene Holmvang, Jesper Kjaergaard, Christian Hassager, Jacob Eifer Moller*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Objective: To describe characteristics of patients admitted with refractory cardiac arrest for possible extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) and gain insight into the reasons for refraining from treatment in some. Methods: Nationwide retrospective cohort study involving all tertiary centres providing ECPR in Denmark. Consecutive patients admitted with ongoing chest compression for evaluation for ECPR treatment were enrolled. Presenting characteristics, duration of no-flow and low-flow time, end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2), lactate and pH, and recording of reasons for refraining from ECPR documented by the treating team were recorded. Outcomes were survival to intensive care unit admission and survival to hospital discharge. Results: Of 579 patients admitted with refractory cardiac arrest for possible ECPR, 221 patients (38%) proceeded to ECPR and 358 patients (62%) were not considered candidates. Median prehospital low-flow time was 70 min (IQR 56 to 85) in ECPR patients and 62 min (48 to 81) in no-ECPR patients, p<0.001. Intra-arrest transport was more than 50 km in 92 (42%) ECPR patients and 135 in no-ECPR patients (38%), p=0.25. The leading causes for not initiating ECPR stated by the treating team were duration of low-flow time in 39%, severe metabolic derangement in 35%, and in 31% low ETCO2. The prevailing combination of contributing factors were non-shockable rhythm, low ETCO2, and metabolic derangement or prehospital low-flow time combined with low ETCO2. Survival to discharge was only achieved in six patients (1.7%) in the no-ECPR group. Conclusions: In this large nationwide study of patients admitted for possible ECPR, two-thirds of patients were not treated with ECPR. The most frequent reasons to abstain from ECPR were long duration of prehospital low-flow time, metabolic derangement and low ETCO2.

Original languageEnglish
JournalHeart
Volume109
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)216-222
Number of pages7
ISSN0735-9780
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2023

Keywords

  • EMERGENCY MEDICINE
  • Ethics, Medical
  • Heart-Assist Devices

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Selection of patients for mechanical circulatory support for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this