Search

Aim Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is the emerging resuscitative strategy to save refractory ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT) patients. We investigated whether the receiving hospitals’ ECPR capabilities are associated with outcomes in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients who have refractory VF or pulseless VT. Methods In a population-based cohort study performed in Kobe City, Japan, between 2010 and 2017, we identified all OHCA patients who had refractory VF or pulseless VT. Based on their ECPR capabilities, hospitals were categorised into ECPR facilities and conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CCPR) facilities. We compared patient survivals between ECPR facilities and CCPR facilities by applying inverse probability weighting using a propensity score. Results Of all 10,971 OHCA patients, 518 had refractory VF or pulseless VT. The proportion of favourable neurologic outcomes was 43/188 (22.9%) in ECPR facilities and 28/330 (8.5%) in CCPR facilities. In the propensity analysis, hospitals’ ECPR capabilities were associated with favourable neurologic outcomes (adjusted risk difference [ARD], 9.7% [95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7%–15.7%]; adjusted risk ratio [ARR], 2.01 [95% CI, 1.31–3.09]), and overall survival (87/188 [46.3%] vs. 67/330 [20.3%]; ARD, 19.0% [95% CI, 11.1%–26.9%]; ARR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.45–2.44]). Conclusions Hospitals’ ECPR capabilities were associated with favourable neurologic outcomes in OHCA patients who had refractory VF or pulseless VT. We should take each hospital’s ECPR capability into consideration when developing a regional system of care for OHCA.

Aim Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an evolving resuscitative method for refractory cardiopulmonary arrests. However, considering the substantial healthcare costs and resources involved, there is an urgent need for a full economic evaluation. We therefore assessed the cost-effectiveness of ECPR for refractory ventricular fibrillation/pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VF/pVT). Methods We developed a decision model to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with VF/pVT who received either ECPR or conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) was used as the main outcome measure. This model was a combination of a decision tree model for the acute phase based on a prospective observational study (SAVE-J study), together with a Markov model for long-term follow-up periods extrapolated from published data. To evaluate the robustness of this model, we conducted a comprehensive deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Results ECPR was cost-effective, with an incremental cost of ¥3,521,189 (Є30,227), an incremental effectiveness of 1.34 QALY, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ¥2,619,692 (Є22,489) per QALY gained. DSA revealed that the present model was most sensitive to probability of Cerebral Performance Category 1 after ECPR (¥2,153,977/QALY to ¥3,186,475/QALY), patient age (¥2,170,112/QALY to ¥3,334,252/QALY), and long-term medical cost for modified Rankin Scale 0 (¥2,280,352/QALY to ¥2,855,330/QALY). PSA indicated ECPR to be cost-effective and below the willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥5,000,000 with an 86.7 % possibility. Conclusions ECPR was an economically acceptable resuscitative strategy, and the results of the present study were robust even when considering the uncertainty of all parameters.