ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2020
Protocol-driven daily optimisation of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation blood flows: an alternate paradigm?
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The six phases of prolonged veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenator support: a conceptual framework.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Predictors of VV-ECMO weaning safety: longitudinal ventilatory ratio assessment during sweep gas off trials, a retrospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Physiologic Effects of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2024Article
- Discontinuation of ECMO-a review with a note on Indian scenario.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2023Review
- Echocardiography for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) is now an established modality of support for patients with the who are failing evidence-based conventional therapies. Minimising ventilator-induced lung injury is the guiding principle behind patient management with VV ECMO. Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) supported with VV ECMO are liberated from ECMO at a stage when native lungs have recovered sufficiently to support physiologic demands and the risks of iatrogenic lung injuries after discontinuation of ECMO are perceived to be small. However, native lung recovery is a dynamic process and patients rely on varying degrees of contributions from both native lungs and ECMO for gas exchange support. Patients often demonstrate near total ECMO dependence for oxygenation and decarboxylation early in the course of the illness and this may necessitate higher ECMO blood flow rates (EBFRs). Although, reliance on high EBFR for oxygenation support may remain variable over the course of ECMO, blood flow requirements typically diminish over time as native lungs start to recover. Currently, protocol-driven modulation of the EBFR based on changing physiologic needs is not common practice and consequently patients may remain on higher than physiologically necessary EBFR. This exposes the patient to potential risks because maintaining higher blood flows often requires a less restrictive fluid balance and deeper sedation. Both may be harmful in the setting of recovery from ARDS. In this article, we propose a strategy that involves daily assessments of native lung function and a protocol-driven daily optimisation of EBFR. This is followed by optimisation of sweep gas flow rate (SGFR) and the fraction of delivered oxygen in the sweep gas (FdO
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.