Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34886916›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of medical research2021

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support for SARS-CoV-2: a multi-centered, prospective, observational study in critically ill 92 patients in Saudi Arabia.

Saad Alhumaid, Abbas Al Mutair, Header A Alghazal, Ali J Alhaddad, Hassan Al-Helal, Sadiq A Al Salman, Jalal Alali, Sana Almahmoud, Zulfa M Alhejy, Ahmad A Albagshi and 7 more

RetractedOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational StudyRetracted Publication
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 12 institutions in 6 countries.

Saad AlhumaidAdministration of Pharmaceutical Care, Al-Ahsa Health Cluster, Ministry of Health, Al-Ahsa, 31982, Saudi Arabia. saalhumaid@moh.gov.sa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4552-4513
Abbas Al MutairResearch Center, Almoosa Specialist Hospital, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9471-2767
Header A AlghazalMicrobiology Laboratory, Prince Saud Bin Jalawi Hospital, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Ali J AlhaddadMicrobiology Department, Omran General Hospital, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Hassan Al-HelalDivision of Laboratory, Medical Microbiology Department, Maternity and Children Hospital, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Sadiq A Al SalmanDivision of Neurology, Internal Medicine Department, King Fahad Hofuf Hospital, Ministry of Health, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Jalal AlaliInternal Medicine Department, King Fahad Hofuf Hospital, Ministry of Health, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Sana AlmahmoudDepartment of Nursing Education, College of Nursing, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, King Faisal Road, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Zulfa M AlhejyAdministration of Pharmaceutical Care, Al-Ahsa Health Cluster, Ministry of Health, Al-Ahsa, 31982, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmad A AlbagshiAdministration of Pharmaceutical Care, Al-Ahsa Health Cluster, Ministry of Health, Al-Ahsa, 31982, Saudi Arabia.
Javed MuhammadDepartment of Microbiology, The University of Haripur, Haripur, 22620, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
Amjad KhanDepartment of Public Health/Nutrition, The University of Haripur, Haripur, Pakistan.
Tarek SulaimanInfectious Diseases Section, Medical Specialties Department, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Maha Al-MozainiImmunocompromised Host Research Unit, Department of Infection and Immunity, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, 11211, Saudi Arabia.
Kuldeep DhamaDivision of Pathology, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly, 243122, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Jaffar A Al-TawfiqInfectious Disease Unit, Specialty Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
Ali A RabaanMolecular Diagnostics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins Aramco Healthcare, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
Ministry of Health · MMKing Fahad Hospital Hufūf · SAUniversity of Haripur · PKImam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University · SAIndian Veterinary Research Institute · INJohns Hopkins University · USKing Fahd Medical City · SAKing Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre · SAMaternity and Children's Hospital · SAPrince Mohammed bin Abdulaziz Hospital · SAPrincess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University · SASaudi Aramco Medical Services Organization · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used as a rescue strategy in patients with severe with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but there has been little evidence of its efficacy.

objectivesTo describe the effect of ECMO rescue therapy on patient-important outcomes in patients with severe SARS-CoV-2.

methodsA case series study was conducted for the laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 patients who were admitted to the ICUs of 22 Saudi hospitals, between March 1, 2020, and October 30, 2020, by reviewing patient's medical records prospectively.

resultsECMO use was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (40.2% vs. 48.9%; p = 0.000); lower COVID-19 virological cure (41.3% vs 14.1%, p = 0.000); and longer hospitalization (20.2 days vs 29.1 days; p = 0.000), ICU stay (12.6 vs 26 days; p = 0.000) and mechanical ventilation use (14.2 days vs 22.4 days; p = 0.000) compared to non-ECMO group. Also, there was a high number of patients with septic shock (19.6%) and multiple organ failure (10.9%); and more complications occurred at any time during hospitalization [pneumothorax (5% vs 29.3%, p = 0.000), bleeding requiring blood transfusion (7.1% vs 38%, p = 0.000), pulmonary embolism (6.4% vs 15.2%, p = 0.016), and gastrointestinal bleeding (3.3% vs 8.7%, p = 0.017)] in the ECMO group. However, PaO

conclusionFollowing the use of ECMO, the mortality rate of patients and length of ICU and hospital stay were not improved. However, these findings need to be carefully interpreted, as most of our cohort patients were relatively old and had multiple severe comorbidities. Future randomized trials, although challenging to conduct, are highly needed to confirm or dispute reported observations.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessSARS-CoV-2AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildComorbidityCOVID-19Extracorporeal Membrane OxygenationFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisClinicalCOVID-19ECMOExtracorporealMembraneMortalityOutcomesOxygenationSARS-CoV-2Saudi Arabia

Identifiers

PMID34886916
PMCPMC8655085
OpenAlexW4200156237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.