Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31986168›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Factors associated with hemolysis during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)-Comparison of VA- versus VV ECMO.

Hannah Appelt, Alois Philipp, Thomas Mueller, Maik Foltan, Matthias Lubnow, Dirk Lunz, Florian Zeman, Karla Lehle

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Haemolytic injury and cardiovascular disease.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Management of Dialysis for Patients Receiving Mechanical Circulatory Support.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Severe cholestasis in neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hannah AppeltDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Alois PhilippDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Thomas MuellerDepartment of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Maik FoltanDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Matthias LubnowDepartment of Internal Medicine II, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Dirk LunzDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Florian ZemanCenter for Clinical Studies, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Karla LehleDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8856-4094
University Hospital Regensburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Venovenous (VV) and venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) are effective support modalities to treat critically ill patients. ECMO-associated hemolysis remains a serious complication. The aim was to disclose similarities and differences in VA- and VV ECMO-associated hemolysis. This is a retrospective single-center analysis (January 2012 to September 2018) including 1,063 adult consecutive patients (VA, n = 606; VV, n = 457). Severe hemolysis (free plasma hemoglobin, fHb > 500 mg/l) during therapy occurred in 4% (VA) and 2% (VV) (p≤0.001). VV ECMO showed significantly more hemolysis by pump head thrombosis (PHT) compared to VA ECMO (9% vs. 2%; p≤0.001). Pretreatments (ECPR, cardiac surgery) of patients who required VA ECMO caused high fHb pre levels which aggravates the proof of ECMO-induced hemolysis (median (interquartile range), VA: fHb pre: 225.0 (89.3-458.0); VV: fHb pre: 72.0 (42.0-138.0); p≤0.001). The survival rate to discharge from hospital differed depending on ECMO type (40% (VA) vs. 63% (VV); p≤0.001). Hemolysis was dominant in VA ECMO patients, mainly caused by different indications and not by the ECMO support itself. PHT was the most severe form of ECMO-induced hemolysis that occurs in both therapies with low frequency, but more commonly in VV ECMO due to prolonged support time.

Indexed as

HemolysisAdultAgedBlood TransfusionCatheterizationExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID31986168
PMCPMC6984694
OpenAlexW3001205077

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.