ArticleCJC open2021
Predicting Survival After VA-ECMO for Refractory Cardiogenic Shock: Validating the SAVE Score.
Article in CJC open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- National Heart Center Perfusion Guidelines.Saudi medical journal · 2026Guideline
- Scoping review of contemporary adult venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) selection criteria and decision-making mechanisms.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2026Article
- Clinician Perspectives on the Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Decision-Making Process.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Queensland adult ECMO retrieval service: A description of the service and analysis of outcomes.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Biomarkers of multi-organ dysfunction in ECMO: prognostic signposts for palliative transitions.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- A Contemporary Guide of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Cardiogenic Shock: Current Evidence, Clinical Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Prognostic scores of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a scoping review.World journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Epigenomic biomarkers insights in PBMCs for prognostic assessment of ECMO-treated cardiogenic shock patients.Clinical epigenetics · 2024Article
- Pulmonary Artery Pressures and Mortality During Venoarterial ECMO: An ELSO Registry Analysis.Circulation. Heart failure · 2024Article
- Outcomes of ECMO support with polypropylene membrane during pandemic times: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Article
- Non-invasive assessment of left ventricular contractility by myocardial work index in veno-arterial membrane oxygenation patients: rationale and design of the MIX-ECMO multicentre observational study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Patient-Related Factors Associated with Adverse Outcomes Following Weaning from Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVeno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is used increasingly to support patients who are in cardiogenic shock. Due to the risk of complications, prediction models may aid in identifying patients who would benefit most from VA-ECMO. One such model is the Survival After Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (SAVE) score. Therefore, we wanted to validate the utility of the SAVE score in a contemporary cohort of adult patients.
methodsRetrospective data were extracted from electronic health records of 120 patients with cardiogenic shock supported with VA-ECMO between 2011 and 2018. The SAVE score was calculated for each patient to predict survival to hospital discharge. We assessed the SAVE score calibration by comparing predicted vs observed survival at discharge. We assessed discrimination with the area under the receiver operating curve using logistic regression.
resultsA total of 45% of patients survived to hospital discharge. Survivors had a significantly higher mean SAVE score (-9.3 ± 4.1 in survivors vs -13.1 ± 4.4, respectively;
conclusionsThe SAVE score underestimates survival in a contemporary North American cohort of adult patients with cardiogenic shock. Its inaccurate performance could lead to denying ECMO support to patients deemed to be too high risk. Further studies are needed to validate additional predictive models for patients requiring VA-ECMO.
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.