Efficacy of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation compared to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation for adult cardiac arrest patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis to compare the impact of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) to that of conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) in adult patients who experience cardiac arrest of cardiac origin. A literature search was performed using criteria set forth in a predefined protocol. Report inclusion criteria were that ECPR was compared to CCPR in adult patients with cardiac arrest of cardiac origin, and that survival and neurological outcome data were available. Exclusion criteria were reports describing non-cardiac origin arrest, review articles, editorials, and nonhuman studies. The efficacies of ECPR and CCPR were compared in terms of survival and neurological outcome. A total of 38,160 patients from 7 studies were ultimately included. ECPR showed similar survival (odds ratio [OR] 2.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-11.20) and neurologic outcomes (OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.66-14.85) to CCPR in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients. For in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) patients, however, ECPR was associated with significantly better survival (OR 2.40, 95% CI 1.44-3.98) and neurologic outcomes (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.38-5.02) than CCPR. Hence, ECPR may be more effective than CCPR as an adjuvant therapy for survival and neurologic outcome in cardiac-origin IHCA patients.This research was supported by the Civil research projects for solving social problems through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT, and Future Planning (NRF-2015M3C8A7A02027410)