Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28127638›Full record

ReviewHerz2017

ECMO in cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock.

L C Napp, C Kühn, J Bauersachs

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Herz, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. PRospective REgistry of PAtients in REfractory cardiogenic shock-The PREPARE CardShock registry.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2022
    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

3 authors.

L C NappCardiac Arrest Center, Acute and Advanced Heart Failure Unit, Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. napp.christian@mh-hannover.de.
C KühnDepartment of Cardiothoracic, Transplantation and Vascular Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
J BauersachsCardiac Arrest Center, Acute and Advanced Heart Failure Unit, Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock is an acute emergency, which is classically managed by medical support with inotropes or vasopressors and frequently requires invasive ventilation. However, both catecholamines and ventilation are associated with a worse prognosis, and many patients deteriorate despite all efforts. Mechanical circulatory support is increasingly considered to allow for recovery or to bridge until making a decision or definite treatment. Of all devices, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is the most widely used. Here we review features and strategical considerations for the use of ECMO in cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest.

Indexed as

Critical CareEquipment DesignEvidence-Based MedicineExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationHeart ArrestHumansShock, CardiogenicTreatment OutcomeCardiac arrestCardiogenic shockCardiopulmonary resuscitationECMOExtracorporeal resuscitationMechanical circulatory supportMicroaxial pumpSudden cardiac death

Identifiers

PMID28127638
PMCPMC5306351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.