Skip to main content

Beating the clock: time-targeted and individualized extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Journal
Current opinion in critical care (Q1)
Published
18 September 2026
Study design
Prospective / inception cohort
Evidence level
Level 2, Moderate (CEBM 2b)
Authors
Adam L Gottula, Paul Rees, Demetris Yannopoulos
PMID
42757491
DOI
10.1097/MCC.0000000000001432

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Emergency Medicine (paper of the day, 23 September 2026): Time‑targeted, individualized extracorporeal CPR review

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) improves survival in selected patients with refractory cardiac arrest, but the benefit is steeply time-dependent. We examine the converging rationale for delivering resuscitation that is simultaneously time-targeted and individualized, and its translation into systems of care. RECENT FINDINGS: Pooled randomized data confirms a clinically meaningful survival advantage for ECPR in refractory shockable out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, while observational cohorts show a steep fall in neurologically favorable survival as low-flow time lengthens beyond 30 min. Recent analyses demonstrate that faster cannulation is independently associated with survival, and prehospital and hybrid delivery models have demonstrated an increase in access to cannulation within the therapeutic window. In parallel, individualized selection integrating rhythm, cardiac arrest characteristics, and physiologic markers refine candidacy beyond rhythm alone. SUMMARY: ECPR success depends on systems engineered to achieve rapid cannulation in appropriately selected patients. Prospectively testing advanced ECPR systems of care within a tightly constrained therapeutic window represents the next step in defining how time-targeted, individualized resuscitation should be delivered.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.