Scquizzato T, et al. Post-resuscitation care after adult ECPR: a scoping review

Certainty
Low
Chapters

22

Clinical implication

The quantitative statement of Part IV's structural gap. Three randomised trials tested ECPR and every one randomised the decision to cannulate; none randomised anything afterwards. We have randomised evidence that ECPR works and none about how to run it.

Comparator

None

Design
Systematic review
Identifier

DOI 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2025.110880

Intervention

None (descriptive mapping of the evidence)

Limitations

A scoping review maps rather than synthesises; outcome reporting across the included studies was inconsistent.

Main result

Domains: haemodynamics 30 of 133 (23%), neurological monitoring and prognostication 22 (17%), oxygenation and carbon dioxide and ventilation 18 (14%), other complications 15 (11%), coagulation and bleeding 13 (9.8%), long-term outcomes 8 (6.0%), temperature control 8 (6.0%), imaging 7 (5.3%), organ donation 5 (3.8%), general ICU management 5 (3.8%). 119 of 133 (90%) retrospective; only 22 of 133 (17%) with more than 500 patients.

Population

133 studies of post-resuscitation care in adults treated with ECPR, published 2015 to 2025

Verified
Year
2025