ArticleAnnals of cardiothoracic surgery2019
Inter-hospital transfer of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-assisted patients: the hub and spoke network.
Article in Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- Left ventricular unloading during extracorporeal life support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: surgical venting versus Impella device.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of cardiogenic shock (CS) in peripheral hospitals may be challenging when acute mechanical circulatory support (MCS) is not available. Tertiary care centers may provide mobile extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) teams to support the treatment of CS-patients externally.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed our single-center experience with a mobile ECMO team focussing on decision-making and survival data of CS-patients retrieved by ECMO support from peripheral hospitals to our tertiary care center between January 2012 and October 2018.
resultsA total number of 134 CS-patients have been retrieved by ECMO support to our center within the observation period. Forty-three (32%) died on the acute MCS device, while 59 (44%) patients could be weaned from the acute MCS. Twenty-nine (22%) were bridged to implantation of a durable MCS system and 6 were finally transplanted. The overall 1-year survival was 33%. Interestingly, advanced patient age did not significantly affect survival.
conclusionsAcute MCS for CS may be provided by experienced mobile teams allowing for retrieval of patients from peripheral hospitals to tertiary care centers. Relatively low survival rates oppose intensive material and human resources. It is therefore mandatory to constantly refine logistics and selection criteria.
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.