Search

Aims: When out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) becomes refractory, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a potential option to restore circulation and improve the patient's outcome. However, ECPR requires specific materials and highly skilled personnel, and it is unclear whether increased survival and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) justify these costs., Methods and Results: This cost-effectiveness study was part of the INCEPTION study, a multi-centre, pragmatic randomized trial comparing hospital-based ECPR to conventional CPR (CCPR) in patients with refractory OHCA in 10 cardiosurgical centres in the Netherlands. We analysed healthcare costs in the first year and measured HRQOL using the EQ-5D-5L at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost-effectiveness planes, and acceptability curves were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed for per-protocol and as-treated subgroups as well as imputed productivity loss in deceased patients. In total, 132 patients were enrolled: 62 in the CCPR and 70 in the ECPR group. The difference in mean costs after 1 year was €5109 (95% confidence interval -7264 to 15 764). Mean quality-adjusted life year (QALY) after 1 year was 0.15 in the ECPR group and 0.11 in the CCPR group, resulting in an ICER of €121 643 per additional QALY gained. The acceptability curve shows that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80.000, the probability of ECPR being cost-effective compared with CCPR is 36%. Sensitivity analysis showed increasing ICER in the per-protocol and as-treated groups and lower probabilities of acceptance., Conclusion: Hospital-based ECPR in refractory OHCA has a low probability of being cost-effective in a trial-based economic evaluation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: R.L. reports support from ABIOMED for consulting lecture work and consultancy on the Medical Advisory Board of Xenios., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Prospective, trial-based data comparing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients surviving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) through extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) or conventional CPR (CCPR) are scarce. We aimed to determine HRQoL during 1-year after refractory OHCA in patients treated with ECPR and CCPR., Methods: We present a secondary analysis of the multicenter INCEPTION-trial, which studied the effectiveness of ECPR versus CCPR in patients with refractory OHCA. HRQoL was prospectively assessed using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Poor HRQoL was pragmatically defined as an EQ-5D-5L health utility index (HUI) > 1 SD below the age-adjusted norm. We used mixed linear models to assess the difference in HRQoL over time and univariable analyses to assess factors potentially associated with poor HRQoL., Results: A total of 134 patients were enrolled, and hospital survival was 20% (27 patients). EQ-5D-5L data were available for 25 patients (5 ECPR and 20 CCPR). One year after OHCA, the estimated mean HUI was 0.73 (0.05) in all patients, 0.84 (0.12) in ECPR survivors, and 0.71 (0.05) in CCPR survivors (p-value 0.31). Eight (32%) survivors had a poor HRQoL. HRQoL was good in 17 (68%) patients, with 100% in ECPR survivors versus 60% in CCPR survivors (p-value 0.14)., Conclusion: One year after refractory OHCA, 68% of the survivors had a good HRQoL. We found no statistically significant difference in HRQoL one year after OHCA in patients treated with ECPR compared to CCPR. However, numerical differences may be clinically relevant in favor of ECPR., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Introduction: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is increasingly used as a supportive treatment for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Still, there is a paucity of data evaluating favorable and unfavorable prognostic characteristics in patients considered for ECPR., Methods: We performed a previously unplanned post-hoc analysis of the multicenter randomized controlled INCEPTION-trial. The study group consisted of patients receiving ECPR, irrespective of initial group randomization. The patients were divided into favorable survivors (cerebral performance category [CPC] 1-2) and unfavorable or non-survivors (CPC 3-5)., Results: In the initial INCEPTION-trial, 134 patients were randomized. ECPR treatment was started in 46 (66%) of 70 patients in the ECPR treatment arm and 3 (4%) of 74 patients in the conventional treatment arm. No statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics, medical history, or causes of arrest were observed between survivors ( n  = 5) and non-survivors ( n  = 44). More patients in the surviving group had a shockable rhythm at the time of cannulation (60% vs. 14%, p  = 0.037), underwent more defibrillation attempts (13 vs. 6, p  = 0.002), and received higher dosages of amiodarone (450 mg vs 375 mg, p  = 0.047) despite similar durations of resuscitation maneuvers. Furthermore, non-survivors more frequently had post-ECPR implantation adverse events., Conclusion: The persistence of ventricular arrhythmia is a favorable prognostic factor in patients with refractory OHCA undergoing an ECPR-based treatment. Future studies are warranted to confirm this finding and to establish additional prognostic factors. Clinical trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT03101787., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: ‘Roberto Lorusso reports consulting fees from Medtronic, LivaNova, Getinge, and Abiomed and participates in an advisory board of Eurosets and Xenios, which are not related to this work. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.’., (© 2024 The Author(s).)