Evidence Hub

Impact of center volume on in-hospital mortality in adult patients with out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest resuscitated using extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a secondary analysis of the SAVE-J II study

Kayo Misumi, Y. Hagiwara, Takuya Kimura, T. Hifumi, A. Inoue, T. Sakamoto, Y. Kuroda, T. Ogura et al.

Scientific Reports, 2024

1,740 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

Recently, patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) refractory to conventional resuscitation have started undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). However, the mortality rate of these patients remains high. This study aimed to clarify whether a center ECPR volume was associated with the survival rates of adult patients with OHCA resuscitated using ECPR. This was a secondary analysis of a retrospective multicenter registry study, the SAVE-J II study, involving 36 participating institutions in Japan. Centers were divided into three groups according to the tertiles of the annual average number of patients undergoing ECPR: high-volume (≥ 21 sessions per year), medium-volume (11–20 sessions per year), or low-volume (< 11 sessions per year). The primary outcome was survival rate at the time of discharge. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared among the three groups. Moreover, a multivariable-adjusted logistic regression model was applied to study the impact of center ECPR volume. A total of 1740 patients were included in this study. The center ECPR volume was strongly associated with survival rate at the time of discharge; furthermore, survival rate was best in high-volume compared with medium- and low-volume centers (33.4%, 24.1%, and 26.8%, respectively; P = 0.001). After adjusting for patient characteristics, undergoing ECPR at high-volume centers was associated with an increased likelihood of survival compared to middle- (adjusted…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 1,740 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free