SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2020
The impact of Centre's heart transplant status and volume on in-hospital outcomes following extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cochrane's risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies (ROBINS-I) is frequently misapplied: A methodological systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Pooled it
- Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Life Support in Heart Transplant and Ventricle Assist Device Centres. Meta-analysis.ESC heart failure · 2021Pooled it
- The absolute lactate levels versus clearance for prognostication of post-cardiotomy patients on veno-arterial ECMO.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- Similarities in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation management across intensive care unit types in the United States: An analysis of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry.Artificial organs · 2022Article
- Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Postcardiotomy Shock-Analysis of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry.Critical care medicine · 2021Article
- Iatrogenic Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenator Rupture: Successful Management of a Unique Crisis.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2020Article
- Left Ventricle Unloading with Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiogenic Shock. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCS) that is refractory to inotropic support remains a major concern in cardiac surgery and is almost universally fatal unless treated with mechanical support. While reported mortality rates on ECMO vary from center to center, aim of the current report is assess if the outcomes differ between centres according to volume and heart transplantation status.
methodsA systematic search was performed according to PRISMA statement using PubMed/Medline databases between 2010 and 2018. Relevant articles were scrutinized and included in the meta-analysis only if reporting in-hospital/30-day mortality and heart transplantation status of the centre. Paediatric and congenital heart surgery-related studies along with those conducted in the setting of veno-venous ECMO for respiratory distress syndrome were excluded. Differences were assessed by means of subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression.
resultsFifty-four studies enrolling N = 4421 ECMO patients were included. Of those, 6 series were performed in non-HTx centres (204 pts.;4.6%). Overall 30-day survival (95% Confidence Intervals) was 35.3% (32.5-38.2%) and did not statistically differ between non-HTx: 33.3% (26.8-40.4%) and HTx centres: 35.7% (32.7-38.8%); P
conclusionsThere was no apparent difference in survival after ECMO implantation for refractory PCS according to centre's ECMO volume and transplantation status. Potentially different risk profiles of patients in these centres must be taken account for before definite conclusions are drawn.
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.