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. Performing trials in this environment is exceedingly challenging and inferences need careful examination.
Objective Determine if a Bayesian perspective provides additional inferential insights.
Methods The INCEPTION trial of patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest reported eCPR and cCPR had similar effects on the primary outcome, 30 day survival with a favorable neurologic outcome. Herein the probability of eCPR superiority, equivalence or inferiority to cCPR is re-evaluated with a Bayesian analysis using both vague and informative priors (from previously completed randomized clinical trials (RCTs)).
Results Depending on the chosen prior, the Bayesian reanalysis of the INCEPTION intention-to-treat (ITT) data suggests an equivalence probability < 10% (defined as an absolute risk difference (RD) < 1%) but a clinical superiority probability of 66 - 99 % (defined as RD > 1.0). An INCEPTION per protocol (PP) analysis with a vague prior suggested a 1% probability of clinical benefit but this posterior probability increased to 86% when informative PP data from previous RCTs were considered.
Conclusion Bayesian INCEPTION trial re-analyses provide additional quantative insights. The totality of the ITT evidence reveals a high probability for a clinically meaningful eCPR benefit over cCPR at 30 days. A PP analysis shows a less definitive probability of benefit. (Abstract word count 197, Manuscript word count 1477)
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I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Analyses have been updated to provide risk differences instead of odds ratios
Data Availability
all data is secondary data that has been previously published