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

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

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
All patients	CCPR	2278	390 (17%)
NLT (min)^a
> 30 min	ECPR	296	17 (6%)	2.977 (1.056–8.388)	0.039
> 30 min	CCPR	1362	20 (2%)
> 45 min	ECPR	248	10 (4%)	5.099 (1.259–20.657)	0.023
> 45 min	CCPR	719	6 (1%)
NLT
< 30 min	ECPR	9	4 (44%)	0.174 (0.033–0.917)	0.040
< 30 min	CCPR	914	370 (40%)

The propensity score analysis incorporated the following variables: age, sex (male), bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, shockable rhythm and low flow time
CPC cerebral performance category, ECPR extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CCPR conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, NLT no and low-flow time
^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)

ISSN: 2052-0492