- Matters Arising
- Open access
- Published:
A comparison of extracorporeal and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest
Critical Care volume 28, Article number: 86 (2024)
To the Editor,
We are highly interested in the recent article published in Critical Care by Low CJW et al., titled "Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus conventional CPR in cardiac arrest: an updated meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis" [1]. In updating their previous systematic review and meta-analysis [2], the authors found that extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) reduces in-hospital mortality compared to conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and indicated the potential for ECPR application in both in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).
In this meta-analysis, the authors focused mainly on updating mortality rate data for patients with OHCA, placing less emphasis on in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) patients. Using the authors' search strategy, we identified a new study that compares ECPR with CCPR in IHCA patients via a propensity score matching cohort study [3]. After incorporating this study, we performed a meta-analysis with Stata version 16.0, concentrating on the mortality of IHCA patients. The meta-analysis results indicated a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality for IHCA patients with ECPR (RR, 0.83; 95% CI 0.75–0.91, P < 0.05) (Fig. 1).
We conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA) using TSA viewer version 0.9.5.10 Beta to assess the reliability of the results from the meta-analysis and the risk of type I (false-positive) and type II (false-negative) errors. The results showed that the Z-curve crossed both the conventional boundary and the required information size, yet it did not cross the TSA boundary (Fig. 2). This suggests that the current sample size might be insufficient for reliable conclusions. Consequently, the observed survival benefit of ECPR compared to CCPR for IHCA patients may potentially be a false-positive finding. Thus, further research is required to validate this outcome.
Furthermore, in Low CJW's Additional File 1: Table S3, concerning overall mortality and 30-day survival, the Z-curve failed to surpass the TSA boundary despite meeting the required information size. This outcome implies that although cumulative evidence indicates statistical significance in traditional analysis, from the perspective of TSA, this significance may be due to random error. Therefore, the current evidence might not sufficiently establish the efficacy of ECPR for cardiac arrest, necessitating further studies for confirmation.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
References
Low CJW, Ling RR, Ramanathan K, Chen Y, Rochwerg B, Kitamura T, et al. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus conventional CPR in cardiac arrest: an updated meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Crit Care. 2024;28(1):57.
Low CJW, Ramanathan K, Ling RR, Ho MJC, Chen Y, Lorusso R, et al. Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults with cardiac arrest: a comparative meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2023;11(10):883–93.
Bian Y, Pan Y, Zheng J, Zheng W, Qin L, Zhou G, et al. Extracorporeal versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrest: a propensity score matching cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2024
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
YZ and QW were responsible for literature research, data extraction, and figures production. BZ was responsible for the supervision. All the authors participated in the draft writing, review, and editing.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
None.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhao, Y., Wang, Q. & Zang, B. A comparison of extracorporeal and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest. Crit Care 28, 86 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04872-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04872-9