Repository logo
  • English
  • 中文
Log In
Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. College of Medicine / 醫學院
  3. School of Medicine / 醫學系
  4. Comparing the survival between extracorporeal rescue and conventional resuscitation in adult in-hospital cardiac arrests: Propensity analysis of three-year data
 
  • Details

Comparing the survival between extracorporeal rescue and conventional resuscitation in adult in-hospital cardiac arrests: Propensity analysis of three-year data

Journal
Resuscitation
Journal Volume
81
Journal Issue
7
Pages
796-803
Date Issued
2010
Author(s)
JOU-WEI LIN  
MING-JIUH WANG  
HSI-YU YU  
CHIH-HSIEN WANG  
WEI-TIEN CHANG  
JIH-SHUIN JERNG  
SHU-CHIEN HUANG  
NAI-KUAN CHOU  
NAI-HSIN CHI  
Ko W.-J.
Wang Y.-C.
SHOEI-SHEN WANG  
HWANG, JUEY-JEN  
Lin F.-Y.
YIH-SHARNG CHEN  
DOI
10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.03.002
URI
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-77953726760&doi=10.1016%2fj.resuscitation.2010.03.002&partnerID=40&md5=28e216f145abe2f668687d2920263ed7
https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/434084
Abstract
Aim: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) has been shown to have survival benefit over conventional CPR (CCPR) in patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest of cardiac origin. We compared the survival of patients who had return of spontaneous beating (ROSB) after ECPR with the survival of those who had return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) after conventional CPR. Methods: Propensity score-matched cohort of adults with in-hospital prolonged CPR (>10. min) of cardiac origin in a university-affiliated tertiary extracorporeal resuscitation center were included in this study. Fifty-nine patients with ROSB after ECPR and 63 patients with sustained ROSC by CCPR were analyzed. Main outcome measures were survival at hospital discharge, 30 days, 6 months, and one year, and neurological outcome. Results: There was no statistical difference in survival to discharge (29.1% of ECPR responders vs. 22.2% of CCPR responders, p=0.394) and neurological outcome at discharge and one year later. In the propensity score-matched groups, 9 out of 27 ECPR patients survived to one month (33.3%) and 7 out of 27 CCPR patients survived (25.9%). Survival analysis showed no survival difference (HR: 0.856, p=0.634, 95% CI: 0.453-1.620) between the groups, either at 30 days or at the end of one year (HR: 0.602, p=0.093, 95% CI: 0.333-1.088). Conclusions: This study failed to demonstrate a survival difference between patients who had ROSB after institution of ECMO and those who had ROSC after conventional CPR. Further studies evaluating the role of ECMO in conventional CPR rescued patients are warranted. ? 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
SDGs

[SDGs]SDG3

Other Subjects
adult; aged; article; breathing; controlled study; extracorporeal oxygenation; female; heart arrest; hospital care; hospital discharge; human; intermethod comparison; major clinical study; male; outcome assessment; priority journal; resuscitation; survival rate; adolescent; cause of death; cohort analysis; comparative study; confidence interval; extracorporeal oxygenation; heart arrest; Kaplan Meier method; middle aged; mortality; probability; procedures; prospective study; resuscitation; risk assessment; statistical model; survival; trends; university hospital; young adult; Academic Medical Centers; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Cause of Death; Cohort Studies; Confidence Intervals; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Female; Heart Arrest; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Kaplan-Meiers Estimate; Logistic Models; Male; Middle Aged; Probability; Prospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Survival Analysis; Young Adult; Academic Medical Centers; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Cause of Death; Cohort Studies; Confidence Intervals; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Female; Heart Arrest; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Kaplan-Meier Estimate; Logistic Models; Male; Middle Aged; Probability; Prospective Studies; Risk Assessment; Survival Analysis; Young Adult
Type
journal article

臺大位居世界頂尖大學之列,為永久珍藏及向國際展現本校豐碩的研究成果及學術能量,圖書館整合機構典藏(NTUR)與學術庫(AH)不同功能平台,成為臺大學術典藏NTU scholars。期能整合研究能量、促進交流合作、保存學術產出、推廣研究成果。

To permanently archive and promote researcher profiles and scholarly works, Library integrates the services of “NTU Repository” with “Academic Hub” to form NTU Scholars.

總館學科館員 (Main Library)
醫學圖書館學科館員 (Medical Library)
社會科學院辜振甫紀念圖書館學科館員 (Social Sciences Library)

開放取用是從使用者角度提升資訊取用性的社會運動,應用在學術研究上是透過將研究著作公開供使用者自由取閱,以促進學術傳播及因應期刊訂購費用逐年攀升。同時可加速研究發展、提升研究影響力,NTU Scholars即為本校的開放取用典藏(OA Archive)平台。(點選深入了解OA)

  • 請確認所上傳的全文是原創的內容,若該文件包含部分內容的版權非匯入者所有,或由第三方贊助與合作完成,請確認該版權所有者及第三方同意提供此授權。
    Please represent that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant the rights to upload.
  • 若欲上傳已出版的全文電子檔,可使用Open policy finder網站查詢,以確認出版單位之版權政策。
    Please use Open policy finder to find a summary of permissions that are normally given as part of each publisher's copyright transfer agreement.
  • 網站簡介 (Quickstart Guide)
  • 使用手冊 (Instruction Manual)
  • 線上預約服務 (Booking Service)
  • 方案一:臺灣大學計算機中心帳號登入
    (With C&INC Email Account)
  • 方案二:ORCID帳號登入 (With ORCID)
  • 方案一:定期更新ORCID者,以ID匯入 (Search for identifier (ORCID))
  • 方案二:自行建檔 (Default mode Submission)
  • 方案三:學科館員協助匯入 (Email worklist to subject librarians)

Built with DSpace-CRIS software - Extension maintained and optimized by 4Science