ArticleESC heart failure2021
Comparison of in-hospital outcomes of patients with vs. without ischaemic cardiomyopathy undergoing veno-arterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Special topics: heart failure-related cardiogenic shock, valvular heart disease and end-stage renal disease. Part 4 of the International Expert Opinion Series on Acute Heart Failure Management.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- Prognostic implication of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock.Journal of intensive care · 2025Article
- Anticoagulation and associated complications in veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Review
- Optimal Heart Failure Medical Therapy and Mortality in Survivors of Cardiogenic Shock: Insights From the FRENSHOCK Registry.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Predictors of in-hospital mortality after successful weaning of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 14 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study aimed to investigate differences in baseline and treatment characteristics, and in-hospital mortality according to the aetiologies of cardiogenic shock in patients undergoing veno-arterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). METHODS AND
resultsThe RESCUE registry is a multicentre, observational cohort that includes 1247 patients with cardiogenic shock from 12 centres. A total of 496 patients requiring VA-ECMO were finally selected, and the study population was stratified by cardiogenic shock aetiology [ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM, n = 342) and non-ICM (NICM, n = 154)]. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. Sensitivity analyses including propensity-score matching adjustments were performed. Mean age of the entire population was 61.8 ± 14.2, and 30.8% were women. There were significant differences in baseline characteristics; notable differences included the older age of patients with ICM (65.1 ± 13.7 vs. 58.2 ± 13.8, P < 0.001), preponderance of males [258 (75.4%) vs. 85 (55.2%), P < 0.001], and higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus [140 (40.9%) vs. 39 (25.3%), P = 0.001] compared with patients in the NICM aetiology group. Patients with ischaemic cardiogenic shock were more likely to have longer shock duration before VA-ECMO implantation (518.7 ± 941.4 min vs. 292.4 ± 707.8 min, P = 0.003) and were less likely to undergo distal limb perfusion than those with NICM [108 (31.6%) vs. 79 (51.3%), P < 0.001]. In-hospital mortality in the overall cohort was 52.2%; patients with ICM had a higher unadjusted risk of in-hospital mortality [203 (59.4%) vs. 56 (36.4%); unadjusted hazard ratio, 2.295; 95% confidence interval, 1.698-3.100; P < 0.001]. There were no significant differences in the primary outcome between the two aetiologies following propensity-score matching multiple adjustments (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.265; 95% confidence interval, 0.840-1.906; P = 0.260).
conclusionsResults of the current study indicated among patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing VA-ECMO, ischaemic aetiology does not seem to impact in-hospital mortality. These findings underline that early initiation and appropriate treatment strategies of VA-ECMO for patients with ICM shock are required.
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.