SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2020
Outcomes of VA-ECMO with and without Left Centricular (LV) Decompression Using Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping (IABP) versus Other LV Decompression Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medical and Mechanical Circulatory Support of the Failing Right Ventricle.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Article
- Review
- Sensitivity of ventricular systolic function to afterload during veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.ESC heart failure · 2022Article
- Use of Percutaneous Atrioseptotosmy for Left Heart Decompression During Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support: An Observational Study.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Observational
- Emerging Topics Update of the Brazilian Heart Failure Guideline - 2021.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Article
- 2023 Chinese expert consensus on the impact of COVID-19 on the management of cardiovascular diseases.Cardiology plusArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Left ventricular decompression is the primary method for solving VA-ECMO-induced LV afterload increase, but the effect of specific methods on patient outcomes and complications is unknown. MATERIAL AND METHODS We searched for all published reports conducted in patients undergoing ECMO combined with LVD. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 12.0. RESULTS The results showed that the risk of death with ECMO combined with LVD was 29% lower than that with ECMO alone (OR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.56-0.89, I²=59.5%, P<0.001). Although the risk of death with ECMO combined other LV decompression techniques was higher than that with ECMO combined with IABP, the difference was not statistically significant (OR=1.27, 95% CI: 0.86-1.87, I²=44.0%, P=0.057). In addition, the ORs values of hemorrhage, stroke/acute episodes, lower-limb ischemia, and hemolysis for ECMO combined with LVD were 0.69 (0.66-0.71), 0.82 (0.78-0.89), 0.71 (0.30-1.66), and 0.48 (0.16-1.39), respectively. The risk of complications, such as stroke/TIA, limb ischemia, and hemolysis, of ECMO combined with IABP was lower than that of ECMO combined other LV decompression techniques, and the risk of bleeding was higher for ECMO combined with IABP. CONCLUSIONS ECMO combined with LVD is more beneficial than using ECMO alone and helps to lower patient mortality.
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.