Skip to main content

Table 1 Univariate and multivariable comparisons of patients who underwent ECPR with or without TTM groups

From: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation with temperature management could improve the neurological outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a retrospective analysis of a nationwide multicenter observational study in Japan

Variables

ECPR with TTM

(n = 471)

ECPR without TTM

(n = 506)

Univariate

P value

Multivariable

P value

OR (95% CI)

Age (years)

57 (47–67)

62 (49–71)

 < 0.001

0.001

0.984 (0.975–0.993)

Male (%)

403 (86%)

425 (84%)

0.533

0.626

0.911 (0.626–1.325)

BCPR (%)

240 (51%)

234 (46%)

0.159

0.853

1.026 (0.786–1.338)

SR (%)

327 (69%)

319 (63%)

0.036

0.803

1.038 (0.777–1.386)

ICPS (min)

51 (42–62)

56 (46–69)

 < 0.001

0.685

1.000 (0.999–1.001)

Cardiogenic cause

442 (94%)

422 (83%)

 < 0.001

 < 0.001

2.927 (1.818–4.710)

CPC 1–2 (%)

75 (16%)

50 (10%)

0.005

0.025

1.570 (1.058–2.330)

TMPS (%)

189 (42%)

    

ICTT (min)

249 (105–400)

    

TT (°C)

     

32

6 (1%)

    

33

18 (4%)

    

34

302 (65%)

    

35

51 (11%)

    

36

86 (19%)

    

ITM (h)

43 (26–50)

    
  1. P values < 0.05 were bolded
  2. Values are median (interquartile range) or n (%) of cases
  3. TTM target temperature management, ECPR extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, BCPR bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, SR shockable rhythm, ICPS interval from collapse to pump start, CPC Glasgow–Pittsburgh Cerebral Performance Category, ICTT interval from collapse to reach target temperature, TMPS temperature management before or same time at ECMO pump start, TT target temperature, ITM interval of temperature management
Back to article page

Journal of Intensive Care

ISSN: 2052-0492