Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34166645›Full record

Observational studyChest2021

Achieving Safe Liberation During Weaning From VV-ECMO in Patients With Severe ARDS: The Role of Tidal Volume and Inspiratory Effort.

Abdulrahman A Al-Fares, Niall D Ferguson, Jin Ma, Marcelo Cypel, Shaf Keshavjee, Eddy Fan, Lorenzo Del Sorbo

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Chest, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05486559 (ECMO-Free Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05486559 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

ECMO-Free Trial: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorVanderbilt University Medical CenterRan2022 to 2026Enrolled225ConditionsExtracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation ComplicationArmsECMO-free protocol, Usual Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Current knowledge gaps in extracorporeal respiratory support.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Discontinuation of ECMO-a review with a note on Indian scenario.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2023
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Abdulrahman A Al-FaresDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Al-Amiri Hospital, Ministry of Health, Kuwait; Kuwait Extracorporeal Life Support Program, Al-Amiri Hospital Center for Advance Respiratory and Cardiac Failure, Ministry of Health, Kuwait; Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Extracorporeal Life Support Program, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Niall D FergusonInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Management, Policy and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Extracorporeal Life Support Program, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jin MaBiostatistics Research Unit, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Marcelo CypelExtracorporeal Life Support Program, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Shaf KeshavjeeExtracorporeal Life Support Program, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Eddy FanInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institute of Health Management, Policy and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Extracorporeal Life Support Program, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada; Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Lorenzo Del SorboInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; Extracorporeal Life Support Program, Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. Electronic address: lorenzo.delsorbo@uhn.ca.
Toronto General Hospital · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity Health Network · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeaning from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) has not been not well studied. VV-ECMO can be discontinued when patients tolerate noninjurious mechanical ventilation (MV) during a sweep gas-off trial (SGOT). However, predictors of safe liberation are unknown. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can safe liberation from VV-ECMO be predicted at the bedside? STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsTwo observational studies of adults weaned from VV-ECMO for severe ARDS at Toronto General Hospital were conducted. MV settings, respiratory mechanics, and clinical variables were analyzed to predict safe liberation from VV-ECMO, defined a priori as avoida7ce of ECMO recannulation, increased MV support, need for rescue therapy, or hemodynamic instability developed within 48 h following decannulation.

resultsDuring both studies, 83 patients were weaned from VV-ECMO, 21 (25%) of whom did not meet the criteria for safe liberation. In the retrospective study, higher tidal volume per predicted body weight (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.05-2.40; P = .03) and heart rate (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.022-1.15; P = .01) at the end of SGOT were significantly associated with increased odds of unsafe liberation when adjusted for age (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95-1.09; P = .63) and sequential organ failure assessment score (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86-1.56; P = .34). Change in ventilatory ratio had an imprecise association (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 0.94-7.95; P = .06) with unsafe liberation when adjusted for age (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.10; P = .42), sequential organ failure assessment score (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.81-1.51; P = .52), and heart rate (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .02). In the prospective study, patients who had unsafe liberation from VV-ECMO also had significantly higher inspiratory efforts (esophageal pressure swings, 9 [7-13] vs 18 [7-25] cm H

interpretationPatients with higher tidal volume, heart rate, ventilatory ratio, and esophageal pressures swings during SGOT were less likely to achieve safe liberation from VV-ECMO.

Indexed as

CanadaDuration of TherapyExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationFemaleHeart RateHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePatient SafetyRespiratory Distress SyndromeRespiratory Function TestsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsWithholding TreatmentARDSinspiratory efforttidal volume per predicted body weightvenovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenationweaning

Identifiers

PMID34166645
OpenAlexW3175055516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.