Conventional or Extracorporeal CPR? A Critical Comparative Review - Does Artificial Intelligence helps in ECPR?

Overview of CCPR

Mechanism of CCPR and ECPR in clinical pathway and outcomes in cardiac arrest patients

CCPR is dependent on chest compressions and ventilation to sustain a minimal amount of systemic perfusion and oxygenation. ECPR, in contrast, uses VA-ECMO to establish complete circulatory and respiratory support in cases where CCPR proves inadequate. Chest compressions yield only ~25–30% of normal cardiac output. CCPR thus creates a “low-flow state:” Enough to preserve some myocardial and cerebral viability for some time but not enough for extended resuscitation. Coronary perfusion pressure >15 mmHg is highly predictive of successful return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), so uninterrupted compressions and prompt defibrillation are key,^[19] as outlined in Figure 1.^[20-24]

Close

Figure 1:

Clinical pathway and outcomes of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR) versus conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (C-CPR) cardiac arrest patients. CPC: Cerebral performance category.

Export to PPT

Limitations of CCPR

Despite ongoing advancements, CCPR by itself achieves proportionally low survival with intact neurological recovery, particularly following prolonged cardiac arrest:

1. OHCA: Survival to hospital discharge is ~10–15%, with good neurological recovery in ~7–10% of patients.

2. IHCA: Survival is greater (~20–25%) but drops precipitously following extensive resuscitation attempts.

3. Physiological limitation: Inadequate cerebral and myocardial perfusion for more than ~20–30 min of arrest tends to produce irreversible injury.

Recent advances in CCPR

1. Mechanical chest compression devices (e.g., LUCAS and AutoPulse) are now commonly used, especially during transport or in catheterization laboratories, but outcome benefit evidence remains controversial.

2. Real-time feedback systems give compression quality data (depth, recoil, and rate), enhancing guideline compliance.

3. Post-resuscitation care bundles: Directed temperature management, early coronary angiography in ST elevation myocardial infarction-associated arrest, and hemodynamic optimization have improved post-ROSC outcomes.^[6,29-31]

Overview of ECPR

ECPR refers to the application of VA-ECMO as an ancillary rescue therapy in patients with unresponsive cardiac arrest in whom ROSC cannot be established using high-quality standard CPR. With mechanical circulatory support and complete extracorporeal gas exchange, ECPR reestablishes systemic perfusion and oxygenation, changing a deteriorating low-flow ischemia into a reversible perfusion state. This “buying time” allows for definitive diagnosis and corrective therapies (e.g., coronary reperfusion, surgical repair, or specific therapies) to be accomplished and minimizes the time of cerebral hypoperfusion.^[32-35]

Core components and physiology

1. Cannulation and circuit: VA-ECMO usually involves large-bore venous return (usually femoral or jugular) and arterial cannulation (usually femoral). The blood is propelled by a centrifugal or roller pump through an oxygenator and returned under pressure to the arterial circulation, thus creating flow that can partially or completely replace native cardiac output

2. Physiologic objectives: ECPR restores sufficient mean arterial pressure and organ perfusion (cerebral and coronary) and preserves arterial oxygenation and CO₂removal. Extracorporeal blood flow is tailored but typically ranges from ~2.5 to 4.5 L•min^-1 based on body size and metabolic requirements

3. Adjunct management: Anticoagulation (most commonly unfractionated heparin) is initiated to maintain circuit patency; vasoactive support, ventilation management, and temperature/metabolic management remain as components of post-initiation therapy.^[32-35]

Indications and patient selection

Proper candidate selection is key to ECPR success. Common selection criteria applied by skilled centers include:

1. Refractory cardiac arrest despite high-quality CCPR and advanced life support (in most cases being defined as the lack of ROSC after an institutionally determined timeframe or attempts)

2. Witnessed collapse with prompt bystander or professional CPR (lowest no-flow time)

3. Brief low-flow interval (time between initiation of CCPR and cannulation); most protocols have cannulation targeted within ~45–60 min from the time of arrest

4. Surprising shockable rhythm (VF/pVT) or high suspicion of reversible cardiac etiology (acute coronary occlusion, intervenable pulmonary embolism, reversible causes of hypothermia)

5. Good pre-arrest condition (independent functional status, no terminal illness, or severe comorbidity)

6. Absolute and relative contraindications will differ from program to program but in general include unwitnessed arrest for more than a short duration, irreversible comorbidity, very advanced age with frailty, and severe irreversible neurologic damage apparent before cannulation.

Timing and workflow considerations

1. Time of essence: Briefer low-flow times are associated with improved neurologic outcomes; hence, lean workflows focusing on quick decision-making and rapid cannulation are vital.

2. Triage pathways: Numerous systems utilize pre-hospital or emergency department (ED) decision checklists to recognize likely ECPR candidates and direct them to ECMO-capable centers. Mobile or pre-hospital ECMO crews have been tested to reduce ischemic time, but these models are logistically challenging.

3. Team coordination: Effective programs involve pre-specified roles (EMS dispatch, ED, cardiology/cardiothoracic surgery, perfusion/ECMO experts, intensive care unit (ICU)), and regular multidisciplinary simulation practice to reduce door-to-cannulation time.

Cannulation techniques and immediate management

1. Access: The most frequent method of resuscitation is percutaneous femoral cannulation; surgical cut-down is an option in certain environments. Ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance (where available) enhance safety and efficiency.

2. Cannula size and arrangement: Diameter of venous drainage cannula and size of arterial return cannula are selected to obtain target flows but with compensation for vascular injury risk; distal limb perfusion catheters are frequently placed to limit cannulated limb ischemia.

3. Hemodynamic objectives following the initiation: Normalization of mean arterial pressure to maintain end-organ perfusion, optimization of ECMO flow to match metabolic requirement, and prevention of excessive left ventricular afterload (which can be avoided with the use of ventricular unloading modalities such as inotropes, percutaneous ventricular support devices, or venting).

4. Instant diagnoses: Bedside echocardiography, arterial blood gases, and focused laboratory testing direct thoracic management and planning for eventual therapy (e.g., emergency coronary angiography).^[36-38]

Complications and safety issues

ECPR creates procedure-specific and systemic hazards that must be actively prevented and managed:

1. Vascular complications: Arterial dissection, perforation, major bleeding at cannulation sites, and limb ischemia (ameliorated by distal perfusion catheters).

2. Hemorrhagic risks: Systemic anticoagulation added to arrest/CPR-induced coagulopathy increases risk of bleeding (intracranial hemorrhage).

3. Infectious complications: Central line/ECMO circuit infections with prolonged cannulation.

4. Thromboembolism and hemolysis: Clotting of the circuit and destruction of red cells require keen monitoring.

5. Neurologic injury: Even with the restoration of perfusion, reperfusion injury and antecedent hypoxic damage can preclude recovery; neurologic prognosis must be carefully made, as outlined in Figure 1.

Outcomes, evidence, and limitations

1. Potential advantages: In chosen cohorts and high-experience centers, observational series and randomized trials, although few, document significantly greater survival with good neurological outcome for ECPR than for historical CCPR controls. The physiologic rationale and case series are persuasive for well-selected patients.

2. Heterogeneity of evidence: Results of randomized trials have been inconclusive – single-center RCTs in optimized systems have demonstrated substantial benefits, while pragmatic multicenter trials have registered neutral differences – emphasizing that effects are contingent on selection, readiness of systems, and pace of implementation.

3. Long-term results: Beyond survival, information regarding function status, cognitive recovery, and quality of life after more than 6–12 months is limited and is an important outcome for future research.

Systems, cost, and ethical considerations

1. Resource intensity: ECPR requires capital equipment, skilled personnel, real-time access to catheterization and critical care, and extended ICU resources – factors that constrain scalability to most health systems.

2. Cost-effectiveness: Modeling only supports ECPR in high-volume, high-outcome programs with consistent achievement of favorable neurologic survival. Local economic evaluation is necessary before program implementation.

3. Equity and allocation: Ethical concerns are equal selection of patients, risk of increasing inequalities (access skewed toward tertiary centers), and open triage criteria. Institutional policies and societal feedback are relevant in planning ECPR programs.^[36-38]

Current guideline stance and practical recommendations

Great resuscitation councils (ILCOR, AHA, and ERC) take a conservative, conditional approach: ECPR can be an option for carefully selected patients with refractory cardiac arrest when it is applied promptly by expert teams and where candidates are subjected to strict selection criteria. The recommendations stress that ECPR is intended to supplement – not supersede – high-quality CCPR and that institutions collect outcomes in registries when providing ECPR.

Clinical comparison of CCPR versus ECPR

The CCPR and ECPR are compared clinically based on various aspects, as outlined in Table 1, but here, some points are discussed below:

Survival to hospital discharge

As reported in modern registries and randomized trials, standard CPR for OHCA is associated with a survival rate of 7–10% with fewer than 5–8% being neurologically intact survivors. In comparison, the application of ECPR to refractory OHCA has been associated with survival rates between 20% and 30% in randomized trials and specialized programs, although these benefits cannot always be replicated in all healthcare settings, especially in pragmatic trials.

Neurological outcomes

The neurological outcome, defined by the cerebral performance category (CPC) scale, is the most important outcome measure. Standard CPR for OHCA is limited by the long low-flow times, causing hypoxic-ischemic injury.

The application of ECPR minimizes the time to restore full circulatory support, reducing the extent of cerebral hypoperfusion. Favorable neurological outcome, defined by CPC 1–2, has been reported in 20–40% of ECPR-treated refractory OHCA, although the benefits of ECPR are significantly reduced in the presence of delays in cannulation, where low flow times exceed 60 min.

Complication profile

CCPR is associated with complications that are generally traumatic in nature, such as rib fractures and sternal injury.

The application of ECPR is associated with additional complications, such as

• Major bleeding secondary to anticoagulation therapy

• Limb ischemia

• Vascular injury

• Infection

• Thromboembolism.

Accordingly, although ECPR may be lifesaving for certain individuals, it is associated with considerably increased procedural risks.

Resource and system implications

CPR is universally applicable and has minimal resource implications. However, ECPR is resource-intensive and requires ECMO-equipped facilities. Multidisciplinary teams are available 24/7, access to the catheterization laboratory is immediately available, and ICU support.

Results are heavily dependent upon timely decision-making and minimizing door-to-cannulation time.^[38-44]

Future perspectives

The future of CPR is in embracing technological innovation, precision medicine, and system-level innovation to maximize results from both CCPR and ECPR. Although CCPR will still be the general first-line strategy, efforts must go into maximizing its efficacy through better training, mechanical CPR devices, feedback systems in real time, and early recognition mechanisms. ECPR, even though costly, will probably increase in high-volume centers with rapid deployment teams, unified protocols, and optimized patient selection algorithms to maximize benefit and reduce futile use. The addition of biomarkers, point-of-care imaging, and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted predictive models may further support real-time decision-making. Furthermore, health-economic assessments, ethical principles, and global equity considerations will be integral to establishing the feasibility of ECPR scalability beyond tertiary centers. Finally, synergistic development of CCPR and ECPR, adapted to patient demand and healthcare resources, is the evolving frontier in the science of resuscitation and holds the promise to optimally enhance survival and neurological function after cardiac arrest.

Recently, AI has emerged as a potential tool in the management of cardiac arrest. Machine learning algorithms are being increasingly evaluated for the prediction of outcomes, real-time quality of CPR assessment, early identification of reversible causes, and risk stratification for the candidacy of ECPR. These AI-based algorithms can potentially help in the optimal patient selection by integrating various clinical, hemodynamic, and biochemical data to identify the patient who is most likely to benefit from the procedure. However, these techniques are still in the investigational phase, and it is recommended that they should be considered as an aid rather than an alternative to the expertise of clinicians.

Although several recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed the pooled survival outcomes between ECPR and CCPR, these reviews tended to emphasize statistical comparison without detailed discussion of system-based implementation, ethical considerations, workflow logistics, and patient selection variability. The purpose of this review is to expand beyond statistical outcome comparison by incorporating physiological considerations, workflow considerations, complications, cost-effectiveness considerations, and ethical considerations into a clinical comparison. By combining emerging randomized trial evidence with registry-based studies and challenges, this article offers a system-based perspective that is useful for healthcare providers and policymakers. This review critically appraises existing evidence regarding CCPR versus ECPR, considering survival, neurological function, complications, and guideline advice. Through a synthesis of recent literature, we seek to present a balanced view of the changing role of ECPR in modern resuscitation practice and point toward areas for future research.

Study design

The present study was designed as a structured narrative comparative review. To identify the relevant literature for the present study, a comprehensive literature search was conducted on the following electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The literature search was conducted from January 2000 to September 2025. The following keywords were used in the literature search: “Conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation,” “extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation,” “veno-arterial ECMO,” “cardiac arrest,” “neurological outcome,” and “resuscitation outcomes.” These keywords were used in combination with the Boolean operators “and” and “or.”

Eligibility criteria

Original randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, registry studies, systematic reviews, and recent guideline statements involving adult patients with in-hospital and OHCAs were included. Pediatric studies, case reports, abstracts of conference proceedings without full texts, and expert opinions without primary data were excluded.

Study selection and data extraction

Independent data extraction was conducted by two reviewers who screened titles and abstracts, with full-text evaluation of potentially relevant studies. Data extracted included study design, setting, patient demographics, intervention description, survival and neurological outcomes, complications, and cost-effectiveness data. Disagreements among reviewers were addressed through discussion and consensus to reduce bias.

Study analysis and assessment

To test the strength of evidence, the quality of observational data was rated by the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, whereas randomized trials were evaluated by the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were also rated by the AMSTAR-2 tool. Due to heterogeneity of study design and outcomes, a narrative synthesis was preferred over a quantitative meta-analysis. The results were then synthesized into comparative tables, flowcharts, and schematic figures to identify the clinical differences and practical implications of CCPR and ECPR.

Limitations

The major limitation of this review was the heterogeneity of the available literature. The selection of patients was different in different studies. The arrest settings were different. The outcome was different in different studies. The healthcare systems of different countries differ. These limitations make it difficult to compare the studies. The evidence that was available was mostly based on observational studies. These limitations cannot be avoided. The majority of the published literature was based on well-developed healthcare systems. These systems had already developed facilities for ECMO. The outcome of the studies was not consistent. The outcome of long-term neurological survival and cost-effectiveness was not consistent. The majority of the published literature was based on short-term survival. The conclusion of this article cannot be made without considering the limitations of this structured narrative comparative review.

Clinical significance

The aim of this review is to present a structured and clinically focused comparison between CCPR and ECPR, extending beyond statistical survival rates and including physiological considerations, neurological outcomes, complications, workflow, and healthcare system considerations. While previous reviews have focused on quantitatively analyzing various outcomes, this review offers a more holistic view by correlating these with real-world practice challenges, patient selection strategies, and ethical considerations.

The clinical implications of this review demonstrate that while high-quality CCPR should continue to be the cornerstone of cardiac arrest care, ECPR should be selectively used in appropriately chosen patients within adequately prepared healthcare facilities. The integration of outcome-based research with operational considerations allows for a more balanced view that can help guide healthcare providers, administrators, and policymakers in determining situations where ECPR can lead to improved neurological outcomes without contributing to unnecessary practice.