What does this research mean for the field?

In ECMO centers operating without perfusionist support, ECPR readiness and workflows are highly heterogeneous, though centers performing ECPR achieve significantly shorter setup times and more frequently employ interdisciplinary teams and regular training. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.SUPPORTS_CONSENSUS.

What question did this study set out to answer?

Assess organizational readiness, circuit preparation times, team staffing, and training frequency for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in centers lacking dedicated perfusionist support.

September 14, 2026BMC Emergency MedicineOpen Access

ECPR readiness without perfusionist support: a cross-sectional national survey on circuit preparation, team structure, and training

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

EMEva Mishuris AWAlexander Wallraff RKRüdger Kopp

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Cross-sectional survey finds shorter circuit setup times and interdisciplinary team training among non-perfusionist ECMO centers, highlighting the demand for universal standardized protocols.

Key Points

Assess organizational readiness, circuit preparation times, team staffing, and training frequency for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in centers lacking dedicated perfusionist support.
Conducted a nationwide cross-sectional online survey among German ECMO centers operating without dedicated perfusionist support (N = 42 centers evaluated).
Surveyed institutional ECMO volume, circuit setup times, staff roles, regular training intervals, and availability of standard operating procedures.
ECPR was performed in 64% of centers (n = 27), demonstrating significantly shorter median setup times compared with non-ECPR ECMO: 15 min (IQR 12–18) versus 30 min (IQR 20–40) (Mann–Whitney U = 46, p < 0.0001; Cliff’s delta = 0.77, 95% CI 0.54–0.94).
Nurses participated in circuit deployment more often during ECPR than non-ECPR cases (59% vs. 20%) and underwent regular training more frequently than physicians (87.5% vs. 60%).
Although 86% of centers (n = 36) maintained internal standard operating procedures, 69% (n = 29) indicated a need for universally applicable, evidence-based guidelines.

Cite This Study

Mishuris et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aa7b2c70926e14a848b15a6 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-026-01766-7

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 14, 2026BMC Emergency MedicineOpen Access

ECPR readiness without perfusionist support: a cross-sectional national survey on circuit preparation, team structure, and training

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

EMEva Mishuris AWAlexander Wallraff RKRüdger Kopp

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Cross-sectional survey finds shorter circuit setup times and interdisciplinary team training among non-perfusionist ECMO centers, highlighting the demand for universal standardized protocols.

Key Points

Assess organizational readiness, circuit preparation times, team staffing, and training frequency for extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in centers lacking dedicated perfusionist support.
Conducted a nationwide cross-sectional online survey among German ECMO centers operating without dedicated perfusionist support (N = 42 centers evaluated).
Surveyed institutional ECMO volume, circuit setup times, staff roles, regular training intervals, and availability of standard operating procedures.
ECPR was performed in 64% of centers (n = 27), demonstrating significantly shorter median setup times compared with non-ECPR ECMO: 15 min (IQR 12–18) versus 30 min (IQR 20–40) (Mann–Whitney U = 46, p < 0.0001; Cliff’s delta = 0.77, 95% CI 0.54–0.94).
Nurses participated in circuit deployment more often during ECPR than non-ECPR cases (59% vs. 20%) and underwent regular training more frequently than physicians (87.5% vs. 60%).
Although 86% of centers (n = 36) maintained internal standard operating procedures, 69% (n = 29) indicated a need for universally applicable, evidence-based guidelines.

Cite This Study

Mishuris et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aa7b2c70926e14a848b15a6 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-026-01766-7

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark