ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
Do-(Not-)Mechanical-Circulatory-Support Orders: Should We Ask All Cardiac Surgery Patients for Informed Consent for Post-Cardiotomy Extracorporeal Life Circulatory Support?
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults: evidence and implications.Intensive care medicine · 2022Review
- Ethics in extracorporeal life support: a narrative review.Critical care (London, England) · 2021Review
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-cardiotomy extracorporeal life support (PC-ECLS) has seen a substantial increase in use over the past 10 years. PC-ECLS can be a life-saving procedure and is mostly applied in the presence of unexpected, severe cardio-respiratory complication. Despite PC-ECLS being critical in allowing for organ recovery, it is unfortunately closely connected with an unpredictable outcomes, high morbidity, and, even in the case of cardiac function improvement, potential sustained disabilities that have a life-changing impact for the patient and his or her family. Since the decision to start PC-ECLS is made in an acute setting, there is often only limited or no time for self-determined choices. Due to the major impact of the intervention, it would be highly desirable to obtain informed consent before starting PC-ECLS, since the autonomy of the patient and shared-decision making are two of the most important ethical values in modern medicine. Recent developments regarding awareness of the impacts of a prolonged intensive care stay make this a particularly relevant topic. Therefore, it would be desirable to develop a structural strategy that takes into account the likelihood of such an intervention and the wishes and preferences of the patient, and thus the related autonomy of the patient. This article proposes key points for such a strategy in the form of a PC-ECLS informed consent, a do-(not-)mechanical-circulatory-support order (D(N)MCS), and specific guidelines to determine the extent of the shared decision making. The concept presented in this article could be a starting point for improved and ethical PC-ECLS treatment and application.
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.