Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27647331›Full record

SynthesisIntensive care medicine2016

Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dagmar M Ouweneel, Jasper V Schotborgh, Jacqueline Limpens, Krischan D Sjauw, A E Engström, Wim K Lagrand, Thomas G V Cherpanath, Antoine H G Driessen, Bas A J M de Mol, José P S Henriques

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05163925 (A Prospective Single Center Study to Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of the EUROSETS Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ECMOLIFE SYSTEM in Clinical Extracorporeal Life Support Applications EUROSETS ECMO STUDY), which is not on this map. Cited by 200 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
200citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
55.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT05163925 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

A Prospective Single Center Study to Evaluate Safety and Efficacy of the EUROSETS Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ECMOLIFE SYSTEM in Clinical Extracorporeal Life Support Applications EUROSETS ECMO STUDY

TypeobservationalSponsorEurosets S.r.l.Ran2022 to 2025Enrolled30ConditionsExtracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ComplicationArmsEurosets ECMO Life System
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

200 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 522 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Effects of levosimendan on the outcome of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2024
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Guideline
  12. Guideline
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Methylene Blue for Refractory Shock in Children: A Systematic Review and Survey Practice Analysis.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2020
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

140 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dagmar M OuweneelAMC Heart Center, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jasper V SchotborghAMC Heart Center, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jacqueline LimpensMedical Library, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Krischan D SjauwAMC Heart Center, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
A E EngströmAMC Heart Center, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wim K LagrandDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Thomas G V CherpanathDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Antoine H G DriessenAMC Heart Center, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bas A J M de MolAMC Heart Center, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
José P S HenriquesAMC Heart Center, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. j.p.henriques@amc.uva.nl.
Academic Medical Center · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeVeno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in patients during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock, to support both cardiac and pulmonary function. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing mortality in patients treated with and without ECLS support in the setting of refractory cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.

methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the publisher subset of PubMed updated to December 2015. Thirteen studies were included of which nine included cardiac arrest patients (n = 3098) and four included patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (n = 235). Data were pooled by a Mantel-Haenzel random effects model and heterogeneity was examined by the I

resultsIn cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an absolute increase of 30 days survival of 13 % compared with patients in which ECLS was not used [95 % CI 6-20 %; p < 0.001; number needed to treat (NNT) 7.7] and a higher rate of favourable neurological outcome at 30 days (absolute risk difference 14 %; 95 % CI 7-20 %; p < 0.0001; NNT 7.1). Propensity matched analysis, including 5 studies and 438 patients (219 in both groups), showed similar results. In cardiogenic shock, ECLS showed a 33 % higher 30-day survival compared with IABP (95 % CI, 14-52 %; p < 0.001; NNT 13) but no difference when compared with TandemHeart/Impella (-3 %; 95 % CI -21 to 14 %; p = 0.70; NNH 33).

conclusionsIn cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an increased survival rate as well as an increase in favourable neurological outcome. In the setting of cardiogenic shock there was an increased survival with ECLS compared with IABP.

Indexed as

Extracorporeal Membrane OxygenationFemaleHeart ArrestHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesShock, CardiogenicTreatment OutcomeAcute myocardial infarctionCardiac arrestCardiogenic shockCardiopulmonary resuscitationExtracorporeal life supportExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27647331
PMCPMC5106498
OpenAlexW2521854974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.