Abstract
Background Whether extracorporeal CPR (eCPR) has survival benefits over conventional CPR (cCPR) in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is an unresolved clinical question. Objective: To determine if a Bayesian perspective provides additional quantative insights into a recently completed randomized clinical trial addressing this question. Methods: The INCEPTION trial of patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest reported eCPR and cCPR had similar effects on survival with a favorable neurologic outcome. Herein the probability of eCPR superiority, equivalence or inferiority to cCPR is evaluated by Bayesian analyses using both vague and infromative priors. Results: Depending on the prior selected, the Bayesian reanalysis of the INCEPTION intention-to-treat data suggests an equivalence probability between 13.4 - 16.8% (defined as 1 / 1.1 < odds ratio (OR) < 1.1). The probability of clinical superiority with eCPR ranges from 65.7 - 77.0 % (defined as OR > 1.1). A similar analyses using INCEPTION per protocol data shows an equivalence probability between 4.7 - 20.2% with reduced probabilities of clinical superiority not exceeding 25%. Conclusion: A Bayesian analysis allows additional quantative insights and suggests that more evidence is required before concluding that eCPR and cCPR have similar average survival effects.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
author is a research scholar supported by Les Fonds de Recherche Québec Santé who had no influence on the choice of the topic, analysis, writing or final submission
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵1 JMB is a research scholar supported by Les Fonds de Recherche Québec Santé
Structured abstract now provided
Data Availability
all data is secondary data that has been previously published
