Extracorporeal-CPR Versus Conventional-CPR for Adult Patients in Out of Hospital Cardiac Arrest– Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Journal of intensive care medicine 2025, Vol.40 (2), p.207-217
• Main Authors: Reddy, Swetha, Garcia, Samuel, Hostetter, Logan J., Finch, Alexander S., Bellolio, Fernanda, Guru, Pramod, Gerberi, Danielle J., Smischney, Nathan J.
• Format: Review
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - methods; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation - methods; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest - mortality; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest - therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0885-0666; 1525-1489
• DOI: 10.1177/08850666241303851

Objective Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) utilizes veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in cardiac arrest patients to reduce the risk of mortality and multiorgan dysfunction from systemic hypoperfusion. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of patients receiving ECPR versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) for refractory cardiac arrest. Data Sources This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. A librarian searched the main databases, Ovid MEDLINE (including epub ahead of print, in-process & other non-indexed citations), Ovid EMBASE and Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through July 2024. Study Selection We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared the outcomes of ECPR to CCPR in cardiac arrest patients. Primary outcomes were neurological sequelae and survival. Data Extraction We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data on selected articles and performed risk of bias assessments using ROBINS-I for non-randomized controlled trials and the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials with disagreements settled by a third independent reviewer. Data Synthesis Out of 3458 studies identified and screened, 28 studies including 304,360 cardiac arrest patients met eligibility criteria and were included. Survival at hospital discharge was 20% for ECPR versus 3.3% for CCPR (OR 0.48 [CI 0.27, 0.84]). Favorable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was 11.8% for ECPR versus 1.9% for CCPR (OR 0.41 [CI 0.17, 1.01]). Complications from bleeding were ten times higher in the ECPR group (35.3% vs 3.7%; OR 0.08 [0.03, 0.24]). Conclusions ECPR appeared to be superior to CCPR for improved neurological outcome and survival in cardiac arrest patients, although bleeding was increased. There was large heterogeneity in the included studies and outcomes reported. Future prospective studies may improve the identification of subgroups of patients that will benefit most from ECPR. Systematic review and meta-analysis registration: PROSPERO - CRD42023394128.