Applying randomized control trial criteria to an ECPR cohort

To assess how inclusion criteria from major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) apply within a cannulated ECPR cohort and to benchmark observed outcomes against published trial results. We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study at a 1,000-bed tertiary medical center of adults who underwent ECPR for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Inclusion criteria from the ARREST, PRAGUE, and INCEPTION trials were retrospectively applied. Analyses were restricted to cannulated patients, with survival evaluated overall and stratified by trial eligibility, and descriptively compared with published RCT outcomes. Sixty-six patients underwent ECPR, including 25 (38%) with a non-shockable initial rhythm. Overall survival to hospital discharge was 14% (9/66; 95% CI 6.4–24.3%), with favorable neurological outcome in 5/9 survivors. Survival was numerically higher among patients meeting trial inclusion criteria, but differences were not statistically significant. Survival was comparable to PRAGUE and INCEPTION and lower than ARREST. Within this program-level, cannulated ECPR cohort, RCT-derived inclusion criteria did not clearly distinguish survivors from non-survivors, and survival occurred among patients not meeting one or more trial eligibility thresholds. Rigid application of trial criteria at the point of cannulation may therefore exclude some patients with potential for meaningful recovery.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Resuscitation Plus
Published
2026-02-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resplu.2026.101269
Primary Topic
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Applying randomized control trial criteria to an ECPR cohort

Refael Strugo, Asher Elad, David Shimony, Frederic S. Zimmerman et al.
Resuscitation Plus
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
article

Applying randomized control trial criteria to an ECPR cohort

Refael Strugo, Asher Elad, David Shimony, Frederic S. Zimmerman, Merin Ofer, Tomer Kaplan, Yigal Helviz, Phillip D. Levin, Amir Orlev, Reem Naimy, Daniel Fink, Michael Glikson
article en

Abstract

To assess how inclusion criteria from major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) apply within a cannulated ECPR cohort and to benchmark observed outcomes against published trial results. We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study at a 1,000-bed tertiary medical center of adults who underwent ECPR for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Inclusion criteria from the ARREST, PRAGUE, and INCEPTION trials were retrospectively applied. Analyses were restricted to cannulated patients, with survival evaluated overall and stratified by trial eligibility, and descriptively compared with published RCT outcomes. Sixty-six patients underwent ECPR, including 25 (38%) with a non-shockable initial rhythm. Overall survival to hospital discharge was 14% (9/66; 95% CI 6.4–24.3%), with favorable neurological outcome in 5/9 survivors. Survival was numerically higher among patients meeting trial inclusion criteria, but differences were not statistically significant. Survival was comparable to PRAGUE and INCEPTION and lower than ARREST. Within this program-level, cannulated ECPR cohort, RCT-derived inclusion criteria did not clearly distinguish survivors from non-survivors, and survival occurred among patients not meeting one or more trial eligibility thresholds. Rigid application of trial criteria at the point of cannulation may therefore exclude some patients with potential for meaningful recovery.

Resuscitation PlusVol. 28
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL), Magen David Adom (IL), Shaare Zedek Medical Center (IL)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 59%
Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.