ArticleThe Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2017
Inter-Facility Transport on Extracorporeal Life Support: Clinical Outcomes and Comparative Analysis with In-house Patients.
Article in The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-speed trains versus air transport vectors for mass transfers of critically ill patients: The TRANSCOV cohort study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Urgent Interhospital Transportation for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients.Journal of chest surgery · 2022Article
- Observational
- Erratum: Inter-Facility Transport on Extracorporeal Life Support: Clinical Outcomes and Comparative Analysis with In-house Patients.The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal life support (ECLS) is widely used in refractory heart or lung failure, and the demand for inter-facility transportation on ECLS is expanding. However, little is known about post-transportation outcomes, the clinical safety of such transportation, or the characteristics of the transported patients.
methodsThis was a retrospective review of a 3-year, single-institution experience with inter-facility ECLS transport, as well as a comparative analysis of clinical outcomes with those of in-house patients. We also analyzed the risk factors for hospital mortality in the entire ECLS population using univariate and multivariate analyses to investigate the effects of transport.
resultsAll 44 patients were safely transported without adverse events. The average travel distance was 178.7 km, with an average travel time of 74.0 minutes. Early survival of the transported group seemed to be better than that of the in-house group, but the difference was not statistically significant (70.5% vs. 56.6%, p=0.096). The incidence of complications was similar between the 2 groups, except for critical limb ischemia, which was significantly more common in the transported group than in the in-house group (25.0% vs. 8.1%, p=0.017). After adjusting for confounders, being part of the transported group was not a predictor of early death (adjusted odds ratio, 0.689; p=0.397).
conclusionTransportation of patients on ECLS is relatively safe, and the clinical outcomes of transported patients are comparable to those of in-house ECLS patients. Although matched studies are required, our study demonstrates that transporting patients on ECLS did not increase their risk of hospital mortality after adjustment for other factors.
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.