Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of the proportion of patients with a favourable neurological outcome (CPC 1–2) between the ECPR and CCPR groups using propensity score analysis with the inverse probability of the treatment-weighting method

From: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation without target temperature management for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients prolongs the therapeutic time window: a retrospective analysis of a nationwide multicentre observational study in Japan

Variables Treatment n CPC 1–2 OR (95% CI) P value
All patients ECPR 307 22 (7%) 0.328 (0.141–0.761) 0.010
CCPR 2278 390 (17%)   
NLT (min)a
 > 30 min ECPR 296 17 (6%) 2.977 (1.056–8.388) 0.039
CCPR 1362 20 (2%)   
 > 45 min ECPR 248 10 (4%) 5.099 (1.259–20.657) 0.023
CCPR 719 6 (1%)   
NLT
 < 30 min ECPR 9 4 (44%) 0.174 (0.033–0.917) 0.040
CCPR 914 370 (40%)   
  1. The propensity score analysis incorporated the following variables: age, sex (male), bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, shockable rhythm and low flow time
  2. CPC cerebral performance category, ECPR extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CCPR conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, NLT no and low-flow time
  3. aDefined as the interval from witnessed OHCA to start of reperfusion (start of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for ECPR or return of spontaneous circulation for CCPR)