Return to Work After Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Patients Managed With or Without Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Nationwide Register-Based Study

BACKGROUND: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is increasingly used for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). However, survivors managed with ECPR are at risk of poor functional status. The purpose of this study was to investigate return to work (RTW) after refractory OHCA.METHODS AND RESULTS: Of 44 360 patients with OHCA in the period of 2011 to 2020, this nationwide registry-based study included 805 patients with refractory OHCA in the working age (18-65 years) who were employed before OHCA (2% of the total OHCA cohort). Demographics, prehospital characteristics, status at hospital arrival, employment status, and survival were retrieved through the Danish national registries. Sustainable RTW was defined as RTW for ≥6 months without any long sick leave relapses. Median follow-up time was 4.1 years. ECPR and standard advanced cardiovascular life support were applied in 136 and 669 patients, respectively. RTW 1 year after OHCA was similar (39% versus 54%; P=0.2) and sustainable RTW was high in both survivors managed with ECPR and survivors managed with standard advanced cardiovascular life support (83% versus 85%; P&gt;0.9). Younger age and shorter length of hospitalization were associated with RTW in multivariable Cox analysis, whereas ECPR was not.CONCLUSIONS: In refractory OHCA-patients employed prior to OHCA, approximately 1 out of 2 patients were employed after 1 year with no difference between patients treated with ECPR or standard advanced cardiovascular life support. Younger age and shorter length of hospitalization were associated with RTW while ECPR was not.</p

Refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation at hospital arrival – survival and neurological outcome without extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Abstract Background The prognosis in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) with ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) at hospital arrival is often considered dismal. The use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) for perfusion enhancement during resuscitation has shown variable results. We aimed to investigate outcome in refractory OHCA patients managed conservatively without use of eCPR. Methods We included consecutive OHCA patients with refractory arrest or prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in the Copenhagen area in 2002–2011. Results A total of 3992 OHCA patients with resuscitation attempts were included; in 2599, treatment was terminated prehospital, and 1393 (35%) were brought to the hospital either with ROSC (n = 1285, 92%) or with refractory OHCA (n = 108, 8%). Of patients brought in with refractory OHCA, 56 (52%) achieved ROSC in the emergency department. There were no differences between patients with refractory OHCA or prehospital ROSC with regard to age, sex, comorbidities, or etiology of OHCA. Time to emergency medical services (EMS) arrival was similar, whereas time to ROSC (when ROSC was achieved) was longer in refractory OHCA patients (EMS, 6 (5–9] vs. 7 [5–10] min, p = 0.8; ROSC, 15 [9–22] vs. 27 [20–41] min, p  60 min achieved ROSC. No difference in favorable neurological outcome in patients surviving to discharge was found (prehospital ROSC 84% vs. refractory OHCA 86%; p = 0.7). Conclusions Survival after refractory OHCA with ongoing CPR at hospital arrival was significantly lower than among patients with prehospital ROSC. Despite a lower survival, the majority of survivors with both refractory OHCA and prehospital ROSC were discharged with a similar degree of favorable neurological outcome, indicating that continued efforts in spite of refractory OHCA are not in vain and may still lead to favorable outcome even without eCPR

Left-Ventricular Unloading With Impella During Refractory Cardiac Arrest Treated With Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is the implementation of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) during refractory cardiac arrest. The role of left-ventricular (LV) unloading with Impella in addition to VA-ECMO ("ECMELLA") remains unclear during ECPR. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to characterize patients with ECPR receiving LV unloading and to compare in-hospital mortality between ECMELLA and VA-ECMO during ECPR.DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and abstract websites of the three largest cardiology societies (American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and European Society of Cardiology).STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies with adult patients with refractory cardiac arrest receiving ECPR with ECMELLA or VA-ECMO until July 2023 according to the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis checklist.DATA EXTRACTION: Patient and treatment characteristics and in-hospital mortality from 13 study records at 32 hospitals with a total of 1014 ECPR patients. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI were computed with the Mantel-Haenszel test using a random-effects model.DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven hundred sixty-two patients (75.1%) received VA-ECMO and 252 (24.9%) ECMELLA. Compared with VA-ECMO, the ECMELLA group was comprised of more patients with initial shockable electrocardiogram rhythms (58.6% vs. 49.3%), acute myocardial infarctions (79.7% vs. 51.5%), and percutaneous coronary interventions (79.0% vs. 47.5%). VA-ECMO alone was more frequently used in pulmonary embolism (9.5% vs. 0.7%). Age, rate of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and low-flow times were similar between both groups. ECMELLA support was associated with reduced odds of mortality (OR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.30-0.91]) and higher odds of good neurologic outcome (OR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.17-4.22]) compared with VA-ECMO support alone. ECMELLA therapy was associated with numerically increased but not significantly higher complication rates. Primary results remained robust in multiple sensitivity analyses.CONCLUSIONS: ECMELLA support was predominantly used in patients with acute myocardial infarction and VA-ECMO for pulmonary embolism. ECMELLA support during ECPR might be associated with improved survival and neurologic outcome despite higher complication rates. However, indications and frequency of ECMELLA support varied strongly between institutions. Further scientific evidence is urgently required to elaborate standardized guidelines for the use of LV unloading during ECPR.</p