Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26938949›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2016

Hemodynamic Differences Between Central ECMO and Peripheral ECMO: A Primary CFD Study.

Kaiyun Gu, Ya Zhang, Bin Gao, Yu Chang, Yi Zeng

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kaiyun Guof Life Science and BioEngineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China (mainland).
Ya ZhangSchool of Life Science and BioEngineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China (mainland).
Bin GaoSchool of Life Science and BioEngineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China (mainland).
Yu ChangSchool of Life Science and BioEngineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China (mainland).
Yi ZengSchool of Life Science and BioEngineering, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, China (mainland).
Beijing University of Technology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VAECMO), including central ECMO (cECMO) and peripheral ECMO (pECMO), is widely used in cardiopulmonary surgery. The outcomes and complications of both types of ECMO are quite different from each other. The hemodynamic differences among them are hypothesized as a key factor. Hence, a numerical study was conducted to test this hypothesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS Ideal cardiovascular models with pECMO and cECMO were established. The aortic pressure and flow rate were chosen as boundary conditions. The flow pattern, blood flow distributions, flow junction, harmonic index (HI) of blood flow, wall shear stress (WSS), and the oscillatory shear index (OSI) were calculated to evaluate the hemodynamic states. RESULTS pECMO could achieve better upper limb and brain perfusion (0.05458 vs. 0.05062 kg/s), and worse lower limb perfusion (0.03067 vs. 0.03401 kg/s). There exist low WSS (<0.4 pa) regions at the inner and posterior wall of the aorta, and high WSS (>2 pa) region at the access of the femoral artery. These regions also have relatively high OSI value (reaching 0.45). In contrast, for cECMO, there exist high WSS at the posterior wall of the aortic arch. CONCLUSIONS The hemodynamic performances of various types of ECMO are different from each other, which maybe the key reasons for the differences in the outcomes and complications. Therefore, for pEMCO, the lower-extremity ischemia is a complication that must be considered. The type, support level, and duration of ECMO should also be carefully regulated according to the patients' condition, as they are the important factors related to vascular complications.

Indexed as

Extracorporeal Membrane OxygenationHydrodynamicsAortaHemodynamicsHumansStress, Mechanical

Identifiers

PMID26938949
PMCPMC4780269
OpenAlexW2288300420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.