Marcel C G van de Poll's research while affiliated with Maastricht Universitair Medisch Centrum and other places

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

Introduction 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 This cost-effectiveness study was part of the INCEPTION study, a multicenter, pragmatic randomized trial comparing hospital-based ECPR to conventional CPR (CCPR) in patients with refractory OHCA in 10 cardiosurgical centers in the Netherlands. We analyzed healthcare costs in the first year and measured HRQOL using the EQ-5D-5L at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio’s (ICER), 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. Results In total 132 patients were enrolled: 62 in the CCPR and 70 in the ECPR group. The difference in mean costs after one year was €5,109 (95%CI -7,264–15,764). Mean QALY after one 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 to 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.

Cardiac arrest (CA) is a common and potentially avoidable cause of death, while constituting a substantial public health burden. Although survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) have improved in recent decades, the prognosis for refractory OHCA remains poor. The use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is increasingly being considered to support rescue measures when conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) fails. ECPR enables immediate haemodynamic and respiratory stabilisation of patients with CA who are refractory to conventional CPR and thereby reduces the low-flow time, promoting favourable neurological outcomes. In the case of refractory OHCA, multiple studies have shown beneficial effects in specific patient categories. However, ECPR might be more effective if it is implemented in the pre-hospital setting to reduce the low-flow time, thereby limiting permanent brain damage. The ongoing ON-SCENE trial might provide a definitive answer regarding the effectiveness of ECPR. The aim of this narrative review is to present the most recent literature available on ECPR and its current developments.

Background A recent large multicentre trial found no difference in clinical outcomes but identified a possibility of increased mortality rates in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) receiving higher protein. These alarming findings highlighted the urgent need to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to inform clinical practice. Methods From personal files, citation searching, and three databases searched up to 29-5-2023, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult critically ill patients that compared higher vs lower protein delivery with similar energy delivery between groups and reported clinical and/or patient-centred outcomes. We conducted random-effect meta-analyses and subsequently trial sequential analyses (TSA) to control for type-1 and type-2 errors. The main subgroup analysis investigated studies with and without combined early physical rehabilitation intervention. A subgroup analysis of AKI vs no/not known AKI was also conducted. Results Twenty-three RCTs ( n = 3303) with protein delivery of 1.49 ± 0.48 vs 0.92 ± 0.30 g/kg/d were included. Higher protein delivery was not associated with overall mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–1.11; I ² = 0%; 21 studies; low certainty) and other clinical outcomes. In 2 small studies, higher protein combined with early physical rehabilitation showed a trend towards improved self-reported quality-of-life physical function measurements at day-90 (standardized mean difference 0.40, 95% CI − 0.04 to 0.84; I ² = 30%). In the AKI subgroup, higher protein delivery significantly increased mortality (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11–1.82; I ² = 0%; 3 studies; confirmed by TSA with high certainty, and the number needed to harm is 7). Higher protein delivery also significantly increased serum urea (mean difference 2.31 mmol/L, 95% CI 1.64–2.97; I ² = 0%; 7 studies). Conclusion Higher, compared with lower protein delivery, does not appear to affect clinical outcomes in general critically ill patients but may increase mortality rates in patients with AKI. Further investigation of the combined early physical rehabilitation intervention in non-AKI patients is warranted. Prospero ID CRD42023441059.

Background Evidence for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains inconclusive. Recently, the INCEPTION-trial, comparing extracorporeal with conventional CPR, found no statistically significant difference in neurologically favorable survival. Since protocol deviations were anticipated, a pre-specified per-protocol analysis was foreseen. Methods The per-protocol analysis of the INCEPTION trial excluded patients not meeting inclusion or exclusion criteria, amongst which time-to-cannulation of >60 minutes, and achieving a return of spontaneous circulation before hospital arrival. Crossovers were excluded as well. The primary outcome (30-day survival in a neurologically favorable condition; cerebral performance category [CPC] 1-2) was primarily analyzed under a frequentist statistical framework. In addition, Bayesian analysis under a minimally informative prior was performed. Results Eighty-one patients were included in the per-protocol analysis (extracorporeal CPR n=33, conventional CPR n=48). Thirty-day survival with CPC1-2 was 15% in the extracorporeal CPR group versus 9% in the conventional CPR group (adjusted OR 1.9; 95% CI 0.4-9.3; p-value 0.393). Bayesian analysis showed an 84% posterior probability of any ECPR benefit and a 61% posterior probability of a 5% absolute risk reduction for the primary outcome. Conclusion A pre-planned, pre-specified per-protocol analysis of the INCEPTION-trial, found a higher survival with favorable neurological in patients undergoing ECPR versus CCPR for refractory shockable OHCA. This difference did not reach statistical significance, but results should be interpreted with care, in the light of the small remaining sample size.

Background: Previously, we performed the multicenter INCEPTION-trial, randomizing patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to extracorporeal CPR (ECPR) or conventional CPR (CCPR). Frequentist analysis showed no statistically significant treatment effect for the primary outcome; 30-day survival with favorable neurologic outcome (Cerebral Performance Category score 1-2). To facilitate a probabilistic interpretation of the results, we present a Bayesian re-analysis of the INCEPTION-trial. Methods: We analyzed survival with favorable neurologic outcome at 30 days and 6 months under a minimally informative prior in the intention-to-treat population. Effect sizes are presented as absolute risk differences (ARD) and relative risks (RR), with 95% credible intervals (CrI). We estimated posterior probabilities at various thresholds, including the minimal clinically important difference (5% ARD), based on expert consensus, and performed sensitivity analyses under a skeptical and literature-based priors. Results: The mean ARD for 30-day survival with favorable neurologic outcome was 3.6% (95% CrI -9.5-16.7%), favoring ECPR, with a median RR of 1.22 (95% CrI 0.59-2.51). The posterior probability of a minimal clinically important difference was 42% at 30 days and 42% at 6 months, in favor of ECPR. The probability of any harm at 30 days was 29% and 35% under a minimally-informative and skeptical prior, and <6% under both informative priors. Conclusion: Bayesian re-analysis of the INCEPTION-trial estimated a 42% probability of a minimal clinically important difference between ECPR and CCPR in refractory OHCA in terms of 30-day survival with favorable neurologic outcome. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03101787, registered April 5th 2017).

Purpose of review Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an emerging treatment for refractory cardiac arrest. In recent years, several randomized controlled trials have been published that aimed to address the efficacy and effectiveness of ECPR for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Despite the lack of high-quality evidence concerning clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, ECPR is increasingly implemented throughout the world. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of the current status of ECPR for OHCA. Recent findings Randomized controlled trials showed diverging results, largely due to differences in selection criteria and study design. Single-center studies, performed in centers with extraordinary expertise and dedication consistently achieve a low-flow time of around 60 min, but such achievements are rarely reproduced outside these centers. Strict patient selection can improve outcome but simultaneously limits the caseload. Preliminary data suggest that outcome may also be improved by avoiding hyperoxia postresuscitation. Summary The potential of ECPR to increase survival in selected patients in highly dedicated systems seems to be proven, the question remains whether ECPR for OHCA can be widely implemented successfully and can develop into a sustainable, commonplace resource-effective treatment.