ReviewCureus2021
A Meta-Analysis Comparing Venoarterial (VA) Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) to Impella for Acute Right Ventricle Failure.
Review in Cureus, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Algorithm of High-Risk Massive Pulmonary Thromboembolism with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Impella Versus VA-ECMO for Patients with Cardiogenic Shock: Comprehensive Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- Mechanical life support algorithm for the emergency management of patients with left-sided Impella.The British journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Antibiotics and ECMO in the Adult Population-Persistent Challenges and Practical Guides.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The right ventricular complication happens when the right ventricle (RV) fails to move sufficient blood through the pulmonary circle to enable enough left ventricular pumping. A significant pulmonary embolism/right-sided myocardial infarction may cause this to develop suddenly in a previously healthy heart, but many of the patients treated in the critical care unit have gradual, compensated RV failure as a result of chronic heart and lung disease. RV failure management aims to decrease afterload and improve right-side filling pressures. Vasoactive medications have a lower effect on lowering vascular obstruction in the pulmonary circulation than in the systemic circle because the vascular tone is lower in the pulmonary circulation. Any factors that induce an elevation in pulmonary vascular tone must be addressed, and selective pulmonary vasodilators must be administered in a prescription that does not result in systemic hypotension or compromise oxygenation. The system-based systolic arterial pressure should be kept near the RV systolic pressure to ensure RV perfusion. When these efforts prove futile, judicious application of inotropic medications for better RV contractility may help ensure cardiac output. After obtaining the finest medical treatment, certain individuals may need the implantation of a mechanical circulatory support device. This meta-analysis is intended to compare the Impella and venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) mechanical supports for patients with acute right ventricular failure. This comparison should demonstrate the best mechanical support between the two through thorough analysis. The analysis was begun by data collection from relevant sites; PUBMED and EMBASE were searched in collaboration with Google Scholar. Keywords were searched: Impella for acute right ventricle failure and VA ECMO for acute right ventricle failure. The results that were close to the search titles had their respective articles downloaded for further scrutiny. The search finally brought 1001 related articles that were exposed to further analysis to find more refined and closer articles within the needs of this meta-analysis. After extensive scrutiny, 23 articles were found to be the best for these analyses. The data showed that VA ECMO had better results than Impella for acute RV failure. However, the data were not statistically significant, as either the numbers of the studies were not enough or the null hypothesis was true and there was no true difference between them. More studies will be needed to confirm this.
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.