To the editor
We read with great interest the recent meta‑analysis and trial sequential analysis published in the Journal by Low et al. [1] reporting the benefit of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for both in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) outcomes improvement.
Anzeige
However, we believe that few issues deserve the results’ interpretation and manuscript’ conclusions.
First, the intrinsic OHCA and IHCA prognoses are clearly different [2]. While OHCA has been more studied than IHCA, their chain of survival are different and, OHCA outcome is better than IHCA [2]. Consequently, it is surprising to mix IHCA and OHCA in a meta-analysis. All the more since in Low et al. study [1], the IHCA prognosis was assessed in 4 studies out of 13, representing approximately 150 patients out of the 14,048 patients analyzed, i..e. nearly 1% of all patients.
In addition, the studies included in this meta‑analysis were mainly, but not exclusively, carried out after 2015, including the study by Kim et al. [3] representing approximately 50% of the patients. Before 2015, ECPR eligibility criteria were not the priority in the studies, which were mainly feasibility studies. Since 2015, the experts recommended the definition of criteria, i.e. eligibility criteria, in order to select patients with the best chance of success and to avoid futile ECPR implementation [2]. Among the eligibility criteria, a shockable rhythm is in itself associated with a better prognosis [4]. Thus, after 2015, ECPR studies concern selected patients, i.e. those with the highest expected success rate, that consequently directly impacts both studies’ design and studies’ results [5].
Beyond these limitations, we agree that ECPR should be considered in both IHCA and OHCA among “selected” patients, i.e. those whose prognosis is, a priori, favorable and who will benefit most from ECPR implementation.
Anzeige
Acknowledgements
None.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
RJ, ACV and BV consent for publication.
Competing interests
RJ, ACV and BV have no conflicts of interest to declare. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.