We thank the authors for their thoughtful discussion of our analysis1.
First, we agree that the study is underpowered to detect subgroups which may have greater benefit (or harm) from extracorporeal life support (ECLS). This also applies to subgroups which will not profit from ECLS due to a futile clinical situation. The current data should thus be interpreted with caution. As all patients analysed in the current study were in refractory cardiogenic shock (CS) with the likelihood of death deemed to be high in the absence of ECLS, our analysis does not challenge the whole concept of ECLS ...
Sign in to read and download the full articleForgot your password?
Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com