ArticleJournal of critical care2021
A preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis of lung protective ventilation with extra corporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO
Article in Journal of critical care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Economic Evaluations in Intensive Care: An Updated Systematic Review.Critical care explorations · 2025Pooled it
- A prospective clinical evaluation of new ECCO2R technology in mild to moderate ARDS patients: assessing ultra-lung-protective ventilation with PRISMALUNG.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Advancing extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal technology: bridging basic science and clinical practice.Medical gas research · 2025Review
- A review of the clinical value of mechanical ventilators and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) equipment.IPEM-translation · 2024Review
- Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for acute respiratory failure: a review of potential indications, clinical practice and open research questions.Intensive care medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMechanical ventilation (MV) is the cornerstone in the management of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Recent research suggests that decreasing the intensity of MV using lung protective ventilation (LPV) with lower tidal volume (Vt) and driving pressure (∆P) could improve survival. Extra-corporal CO
methodsWe modelled the distribution over time of ventilated ARDS patients across 3 health-states (alive & ventilated, alive & weaned from ventilation, dead). We compared the outcomes of 3 strategies: MV (no ECCO
resultsBoth LPV and ULPV as enabled by ECCO2R provided favorable results at Day 60 as compared to MV. Survival rates were increased with the protective strategies, notably with ULPV that provided even more manifest benefits as compared to MV. LPV and ULPV produced +0.162 and + 0.627 incremental QALYs as compared to MV, respectively. LPV and ULPV costs were augmented because of their survival benefits. Nonetheless, ICERs of LPV and ULPV vs. MV were all well below the €50,000 threshold. ULPV also presented with favorable ICERs as compared to LPV (i.e. less than €25,000/QALY).
conclusionsECCO
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.