Variability of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation practice in patients with out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest from the emergency department to intensive care unit in Japan

Aim A lack of known guidelines for the provision of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) to patients with out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has led to variability in practice between hospitals even in the same country. Because variability in ECPR practice has not been completely examined, we aimed to describe the variability in ECPR practice in patients with OHCA from the emergency department (ED) to the intensive care units (ICU). Methods An anonymous online questionnaire to examine variability in ECPR practice was completed in January 2020 by 36 medical institutions who participated in the SAVE‐J II study. Institutional demographics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, initial resuscitation management, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) initiation, initial ECMO management, intra‐aortic balloon pumping/endotracheal intubation/management during coronary angiography, and computed tomography criteria were recorded. Results We received responses from all 36 institutions. Four institutions (11.1%) had a hybrid emergency room. Cardiovascular surgery was always involved throughout the entire ECMO process in only 14.7% of institutions; 60% of institutions had formal inclusion criteria and 50% had formal exclusion criteria. In two‐thirds of institutions, emergency physicians carried out cannulation. Catheterization room was the leading location of cannulation (48.6%) followed by ED (31.4%). The presence of formal exclusion criteria significantly increased with increasing ECPR volume (P for trend
Four institutions (11.1%) had a hybrid emergency room. Cardiovascular surgery was always involved throughout the entire extracorporeal membrane oxygenation process in only 14.7% of institutions. The presence of formal exclusion criteria significantly increased with increasing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation volume.