ArticleCritical care explorations2021
Long-Term Cognitive Outcomes and Sleep in Adults After Extracorporeal Life Support.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Term Neuropsychiatric, Neurocognitive, and Functional Outcomes of Patients Receiving ECMO: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisNeurology · 2024Pooled it
- One-Year Functional, Cognitive, and Psychological Outcomes Following the Use of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Prospective Study.Critical care explorations · 2021Article
- Narrative Review of Neurologic Complications in Adults on ECMO: Prevalence, Risks, Outcomes, and Prevention Strategies.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Sleep, circadian rhythms and outcomes in intensive care unit.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess differences in cognitive outcomes and sleep in adult survivors of critical illness, managed with venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as compared to conventional mechanical ventilation only.
designRetrospective cohort study linked with data from the COGnitive outcomes and WELLness study.
settingA multisite study from five adult medical/surgical ICUs in Toronto. PATIENTS: Thirty-three ICU survivors including adult patients who received venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (
interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsBaseline demographics and admission diagnoses were collected at enrollment. Cognitive outcome was evaluated using the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychologic Status (global cognitive function) and Trail Making Test B (executive function), and sleep variables were estimated using actigraphy. Assessments occurred at 7 days post ICU discharge and again at 6- and 12-month follow-up. No statistically significant difference was seen between patients treated with or without venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in the mean daily Riker Sedation Agitation Score; however, patients in the venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation group received greater amounts of fentanyl over their ICU stay as compared to patients receiving conventional mechanical ventilation only (
conclusionsIn this small retrospective case series, no significant differences were found in sleep or cognitive outcomes between extracorporeal life support and non-extracorporeal life support survivors. Further, in this hypothesis-generating study, differences in administered sedative doses during the ICU stay seen between the two groups did not impact 6- or 12-month cognitive performance or actigraphy-estimated sleep time.
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.