ArticleAnnals of surgery2003
Expanded application of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a pediatric surgery practice.
Article in Annals of surgery, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical Ventilation in Pediatric and Neonatal Patients.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Review
- Respiratory support with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during stent placement for the palliation of critical airway obstruction: case series analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2017Article
- Diverse Morbidity and Mortality Among Infants Treated with Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.Cureus · 2015Article
- Chest computed tomography in children undergoing extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation: a 9-year single-centre experience.Pediatric radiology · 2014Article
- Predictors of outcome for children requiring respiratory extra-corporeal life support: implications for inclusion and exclusion criteria.Intensive care medicine · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the breadth of application and resulting outcomes in a university-based extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) program directed by pediatric surgeons. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Several randomized control trials have supported the use of ECMO in neonates with respiratory failure. No comparable data exist for older children and young adults who may be afflicted with a variety of uncommon conditions. The indications for ECMO in these patients remain controversial.
methodsPatient data were recorded prospectively and reported to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization. These data were analyzed by indications and outcomes on all patients treated since the inception of the program.
resultsTwo hundred sixteen patients were treated with 225 courses of ECMO. Neonates (188 [87%]) outnumbered 28 older patients (aged 6 weeks to 22 years). Overall, 174 patients survived (81%). Sixty-four of 65 (98.5%) neonates with meconium aspiration syndrome survived. ECMO support after heart (3), lung (2), heart-lung (1), and liver (1) transplant yielded a 57% survival to discharge. ECMO also resulted in survival of patients with uncommon conditions, including severe asthma (1), hydrocarbon aspiration (1/2), congestive heart failure due to a cerebral arteriovenous malformation (1), tracheal occlusion incurred during endoscopic stent manipulation (2), meningitis (1), and viral pneumonia (3/5).
conclusionsECMO can potentially eliminate mortality for meconium aspiration syndrome. Survival for other causes of respiratory failure in neonates and older children, while not as dramatic, still surpasses that anticipated with conventional therapy. Moreover, survival of transplant patients has been comparable to that achieved in other children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.