ArticleChinese medical journal2019
Venovenous extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome: a matched cohort study.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the use of extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been rapidly increasing, the benefit of ECMO in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains unclear. Our objective was to investigate the effect of venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO) on adult patients with severe ARDS.
methodsWe conducted a multi-center, retrospective, cohort study in the intensive care units (ICUs) of six teaching hospitals between January 2013 and December 2018. Patients with severe ARDS who received VV-ECMO support were included. The detailed demographic data and physiologic data were used to match ARDS patients without ECMO. The primary endpoint was the 28-day mortality.
resultsNinety-nine patients with severe ARDS supported by VV-ECMO and 72 patients without ECMO were included in this study. The acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score was 23.1 ± 6.3 in the ECMO group and 24.8 ± 8.5 in the control group (P = 0.1195). The sequential organ failure assessment score was 12.8 ± 3.4 in the ECMO group and 13.7 ± 3.5 in the control group (P = 0.0848). The 28-day mortality of patients with ECMO support was 39.4%, and that of the control group was 55.6%. The survival analysis curve showed that the 28-day mortality in the ECMO group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P = 0.0097). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that the independent predictors of the 28-day mortality were the requirement of vasopressors before ECMO (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.006; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.001-1.013; P = 0.030) and duration of mechanical ventilation before ECMO (HR: 3.299; 95% CI: 1.264-8.609; P = 0.034).
conclusionsThis study showed that ECMO improved the survival of patients with severe ARDS. The duration of mechanical ventilation and the requirement of vasopressors before ECMO might be associated with an increased risk of death.
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.