10 October 2017 : Clinical Research
External Validation of Survival-Predicting Models for Acute Myocardial Infarction with Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in a Chinese Single-Center Cohort
Lei Huang1ABCDEF, Tong Li1ACDEG*, Xiao-min Hu1ACDG, Ying-wu Liu1ACDE, Da-wei Duan1CDF, Peng Wu1CDF, Xiao-di Wu2BDF, Yu-heng Lang1BFDOI: 10.12659/MSM.904740
Med Sci Monit 2017; 23:4847-4854
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was designed as an external evaluation of potentially relevant models for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (E-CPR).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty AMI adults that met criteria were retrospectively analyzed from January 2009 to January 2015. Six possible models – ENCOURAGE, SAVE, ECPR, GRACE, SHOCK, and a simplified risk chart – were identified by literature review and model scores calculated based on original data. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, commonly used in intensive care units, served as controls. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to compare the models’ discriminative power for predicting survival to discharge.
RESULTS: The ECPR model showed the best discriminative performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.893 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.733–1.530, p=0.006); the cutoff was 12.5 points, with 66.7% sensitivity and 100% specificity. The “clinical” SHOCK model (including infarct site) showed weaker but still good discriminative power, with an AUC of 0.804 (95% CI, 0.580–1.027, p=0.035); the cutoff was 45.5 points, with 83.3% sensitivity and 71.4% specificity. The remaining models did not show significant discriminative power for predicting survival to discharge. Risk stratifications indicated that a statistically significant difference was observed in the distribution of patients into the ECPR group with different prognoses when stratified by its cutoff (p=0.003), while a trend of significant difference was shown when applied to the SHOCK model (p=0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The ECPR and SHOCK models possess important abilities to predict intrahospital outcomes of AMI patients treated with E-CPR.
Keywords: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Death, Sudden, Cardiac, Extracorporeal Circulation, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Editorial
01 July 2026 : Editorial
Editorial: The WHO Identifies Ebola Disease Due to Bundibugyo Virus as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) as Vaccine Development AcceleratesDOI: 10.12659/MSM.954627
Med Sci Monit 2026; 32:e954627
In Press
Clinical Research
Body Weight and Insulin Resistance Indicators Among ChildrenMed Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951434
Clinical Research
Comparison of Radiographic Cervical Sagittal Alignment Parameters in Patients With Nonspecific Neck Pain, D...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.952950
Clinical Research
Combined Fibrinogen and Urinary α1-Microglobulin as Predictors of Respiratory Tract Infection in Children w...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.951066
Database Analysis
Evaluation of Salivary Total Oxidant Status (TOS) and Total Antioxidant Status (TAS) in Orthodontic Patient...Med Sci Monit In Press; DOI: 10.12659/MSM.952052
Most Viewed Current Articles
17 Jan 2024 : Review article 14,175,576
Vaccination Guidelines for Pregnant Women: Addressing COVID-19 and the Omicron VariantDOI :10.12659/MSM.942799
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e942799
13 Nov 2021 : Clinical Research 3,756,620
Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccination and Its Associated Factors Among Cancer Patients Attending the Oncology ...DOI :10.12659/MSM.932788
Med Sci Monit 2021; 27:e932788
14 Dec 2022 : Clinical Research 2,465,966
Prevalence and Variability of Allergen-Specific Immunoglobulin E in Patients with Elevated Tryptase LevelsDOI :10.12659/MSM.937990
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937990
16 May 2023 : Clinical Research 708,651
Electrophysiological Testing for an Auditory Processing Disorder and Reading Performance in 54 School Stude...DOI :10.12659/MSM.940387
Med Sci Monit 2023; 29:e940387






