Acute cardiac care & resuscitation
The FaciLItated hospital-based Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (ECPR) via Helicopter Transport (FLIGHT-to-ECPR) study
Authors' conclusion
A HEMS-facilitated, hospital-based ECPR strategy is feasible and safely expands rural access to advanced resuscitation while preserving neurologic outcomes comparable to standard ground-transport ECPR. Geography alone need not preclude ECPR when systems are optimized to maintain timely reperfusion.
Study context
- Population
- Adults (18–75 years) with refractory VF/VT out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) meeting Minnesota Mobile Resuscitation Consortium eligibility criteriapatients underwent FLIGHT activation, 27 (60%) received ECPR
- Participants
- Forty-five adults
- Exposure
- FLIGHT vs standard ground-transport ECPR
- FLIGHTn = Forty-five
- standard ground-transport ECPRn = 27
- Outcome
- Survival to discharge with favorable neurologic status (CPC 1-2)
- Follow-up
- Discharge
Methodological detailsmatched 1:1 on low-flow time
- Matched 1:1 on low-flow time
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
| Group | Value | Cannulated patients | Non-cannulated patients achieving ROSC or meeting termination criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| FLIGHT (all activations) | 33.3% | 25.9% (7/27) | 44.4% (8/18) |
| FLIGHT matched ECPR patients | 25.9% | ||
| Standard ground-transport ECPR | 25.9% |
Value
FLIGHT (all activations)33.3%
FLIGHT matched ECPR patients25.9%
Standard ground-transport ECPR25.9%
Cannulated patients
FLIGHT (all activations)25.9% (7/27)
FLIGHT matched ECPR patientsNot reported in the abstract
Standard ground-transport ECPRNot reported in the abstract
Non-cannulated patients achieving ROSC or meeting termination criteria
FLIGHT (all activations)44.4% (8/18)
FLIGHT matched ECPR patientsNot reported in the abstract
Standard ground-transport ECPRNot reported in the abstract
- FLIGHT matched ECPR patients vs standard ground-transport ECPR: P ≥ 0.99 — identical favorable neurologic survival
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | FLIGHT | Standard ground-transport ECPR | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low-flow time in matched ECPR patients · similar | Not reported in the abstract | mean 87.1 (SD 29.2) min | P ≥ 0.99 | FLIGHT: not reported in the abstract |
- Low-flow time in matched ECPR patients: FLIGHT matched ECPR patients mean 85.9 (SD 29.3) min
Cannulation performance, ECMO duration, hospital length of stay
- No differences were observed
Baseline characteristics and process times (FLIGHT)
- Mean age
- 55.2 ± 15.0 years
- Witnessed arrests
- 83.7%
- Bystander CPR
- 69.0%
- Mean 9-1-1-to-hospital arrival time
- 70.3 ± 18.5 min
- Helicopter-EMS (HEMS) scene time
- 18.0 ± 11.6
- HEMS flight time
- 18.6 ± 6.3 min
- Low-flow time among cannulated patients
- 85.9 ± 29.3 min
Original publication
The FaciLItated hospital-based ECPR via Helicopter Transport (FLIGHT-to-ECPR) study. Resuscitation. Published 20 May 2026. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it