ArticleJournal of cardiac surgery2020
Left ventricle unloading strategies in ECMO: A single-center experience.
Article in Journal of cardiac surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of left ventricular unloading timing on clinical outcomes in venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Pooled it
- Early left ventricular unloading during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Artificial organs · 2025Pooled it
- Variability in triggers for mechanical left ventricular unloading in VA-ECMO: A literature search.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2025Review
- Different strategies in left ventricle unloading during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A network meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2024Review
- In Patients with Cardiogenic Shock, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Is Associated with Very High All-Cause Inpatient Mortality Rate.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the treatment of postinfarction cardiogenic shock: is it the end, or do we need to select patients better?Critical care science · 2024Article
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in Management of Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Venting during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2023Review
- Clinical efficacy of direct or indirect left ventricular unloading during venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for primary cardiogenic shock.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2023Article
- Emerging Topics Update of the Brazilian Heart Failure Guideline - 2021.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a life-saving technology capable of restoring perfusion but is not without significant complications that limit its realizable therapeutic benefit. ECMO-induced hemodynamics increase cardiac afterload risking left ventricular distention and impaired cardiac recovery. To mitigate potentially harmful effects, multiple strategies to unload the left ventricle (LV) are used in clinical practice but data supporting the optimal approach is presently lacking. MATERIALS &
methodsWe reviewed outcomes of our ECMO population from September 2015 through January 2019 to determine if our LV unloading strategies were associated with patient outcomes. We compared reactive (Group 1, n = 30) versus immediate (Group 2, n = 33) LV unloading and then compared patients unloaded with an Impella CP (n = 19) versus an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP, n = 16), analyzing survival and ECMO-related complications.
resultsSurvival was similar between Groups 1 and 2 (33 vs 42%, P = .426) with Group 2 experiencing more clinically-significant hemorrhage (40 vs. 67%, P = .034). Survival and ECMO-related complications were similar between patients unloaded with an Impella versus an IABP. However, the Impella group exhibited a higher rate of survival (37%) than predicted by their median SAVE score (18%). DISCUSSION: Based on this analysis, reactive unloading appears to be a viable strategy while venting with the Impella CP provides better than anticipated survival. Our findings correlate with recent large cohort studies and motivate further work to design clinical guidelines and future trial design.
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.