Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2024 Apr 16;28(1):125.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-024-04901-7.

Effect of intra-arrest transport, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and immediate invasive assessment in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a long-term follow-up of the Prague OHCA trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of intra-arrest transport, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation and immediate invasive assessment in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a long-term follow-up of the Prague OHCA trial

Daniel Rob et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

Background: Randomized data evaluating the impact of the extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) approach on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are lacking. The objective of this follow-up study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of the ECPR-based versus CCPR approach.

Methods: The Prague OHCA trial was a single-center, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with witnessed refractory OHCA of presumed cardiac origin, without return of spontaneous circulation, were randomized during ongoing resuscitation on scene to conventional CPR (CCPR) or an ECPR-based approach (intra-arrest transport, ECPR if ROSC is not achieved prehospital and immediate invasive assessment).

Results: From March 2013 to October 2020, 264 patients were randomized during ongoing resuscitation on scene, and 256 patients were enrolled. Long-term follow-up was performed 5.3 (interquartile range 3.8-7.2) years after initial randomization and was completed in 255 of 256 patients (99.6%). In total, 34/123 (27.6%) patients in the ECPR-based group and 26/132 (19.7%) in the CCPR group were alive (log-rank P = 0.01). There were no significant differences between the treatment groups in the neurological outcome, survival after hospital discharge, risk of hospitalization, major cardiovascular events and quality of life. Of long-term survivors, 1/34 (2.9%) in the ECPR-based arm and 1/26 (3.8%) in the CCPR arm had poor neurological outcome (both patients had a cerebral performance category score of 3).

Conclusions: Among patients with refractory OHCA, the ECPR-based approach significantly improved long-term survival. There were no differences in the neurological outcome, major cardiovascular events and quality of life between the groups, but the trial was possibly underpowered to detect a clinically relevant difference in these outcomes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01511666, Registered 19 January 2012.

Keywords: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; Long-term; Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; Quality of life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The corresponding author (JB) has received lecture honoraria from the Abiomed, Getinge, Xenios, Resuscitec, Novartis, Astra-Zeneca, Boegringer-Ingelheim. DR has received lecture honoraria from the Abiomed and Resuscitec. The remaining authors report no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Trial profile. CCPR conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CPR cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ECPR extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A Kaplan–Meier plot showing cumulative patient survival from index cardiac arrest to last follow-up for the intention-to-treat population. CCPR conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ECPR extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. B Kaplan–Meier plot showing cumulative patient survival from index cardiac arrest to last follow-up for the per-protocol population. *The per-protocol analysis is a post hoc analysis that includes only those patients who completed the treatment originally allocated (excluding all crossovers, 20/256 patients (7.8%) were crossed over, 11 crossovers from the CCPR group to the ECPR-based group and 9 from the ECPR-based group to the CCPR group). CCPR conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ECPR extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. C Kaplan–Meier plot showing cumulative patient survival from index cardiac arrest to last follow-up for the as-treated population. *The as-treated analysis is a post hoc analysis that pooled all randomized patients according to their treatment allocation after the accepted crossover (20/256 patients (7.8%) were crossed over, 11 crossovers from the CCPR group to the ECPR-based group and 9 from the ECPR-based group to the CCPR group). CCPR conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ECPR extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Neurological outcome results assessed by CPC at 30-day (A), 180-day (B) and the last-follow-up (median 5.3 years, IQR 3.8–7.2 years) (C) for CCPR group and ECPR-based group. CCPR conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CPC cerebral performance category, ECPR extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

References

    1. Gräsner JT, Herlitz J, Tjelmeland IB, Wnent J, Masterson S, Lilja G, et al. European resuscitation council guidelines: epidemiology of cardiac arrest in Europe. Resuscitation. 2021;161:61–79. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2021.02.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Belohlavek J, Smalcova J, Rob D, Franek O, Smid O, Pokorna M, et al. Effect of intra-arrest transport, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and immediate invasive assessment and treatment on functional neurologic outcome in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2022;327(8):737–747. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.1025. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yannopoulos D, Bartos J, Raveendran G, Walser E, Connett J, Murray TA, et al. Advanced reperfusion strategies for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and refractory ventricular fibrillation (ARREST): a phase 2, single centre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;396(10265):1807–1816. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32338-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lunz D, Calabrò L, Belliato M, Contri E, Broman LM, Scandroglio AM, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiac arrest: a retrospective multicenter study. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:973–982. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-05926-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Abrams D, MacLaren G, Lorusso R, Price S, Yannopoulos D, Vercaemst L, et al. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults: evidence and implications. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48(1):1–15. doi: 10.1007/s00134-021-06514-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

Grants and funding