Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35268314›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

ECMO Predictors of Mortality: A 10-Year Referral Centre Experience.

Benedikt Treml, Robert Breitkopf, Zoran Bukumirić, Mirjam Bachler, Johannes Boesch, Sasa Rajsic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Progress towards permanent respiratory support.Current opinion in organ transplantation · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Indication for ECMO predicts time to first actionable bleeding complication.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Effect of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on mortality rate of aluminum phosphate poisoning: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Benedikt TremlGeneral and Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-3648-7338
Robert BreitkopfTransplant Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Zoran BukumirićInstitute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia.
Mirjam BachlerGeneral and Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-6912-7742
Johannes BoeschGeneral and Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Sasa RajsicGeneral and Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6193-3662

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a specialised life support modality for patients with refractory cardiac or respiratory failure. Multiple studies strived to evaluate the benefits of ECMO support, but its efficacy remains controversial with still inconsistent and sparse information. Methods: This retrospective analysis included patients with ECMO support, admitted between January 2010 and December 2019 at a tertiary university ECMO referral centre in Austria. The primary endpoint of the study was overall all-cause three-month mortality with risk factors and predictors of mortality. Secondary endpoints covered the analysis of demographic and clinical characteristics of patients needing ECMO, including incidence and type of adverse events during support. Results: In total, 358 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria and received ECMO support due to cardiogenic shock (258, 72%), respiratory failure (88, 25%) or hypothermia (12, 3%). In total, 41% (145) of patients died within the first three months, with the median time to death of 9 (1−87) days. The multivariate analysis identified hypothermia (HR 3.8, p < 0.001), the Simplified Acute Physiology Score III (HR 1.0, p < 0.001), ECMO initiation on weekends (HR 1.6, p = 0.016) and haemorrhage during ECMO support (HR 1.7, p = 0.001) as factors with higher risk for mortality. Finally, the most frequent adverse event was haemorrhage (160, 45%) followed by thrombosis. Conclusions: ECMO is an invasive advanced support system with a high risk of complications. Nevertheless, well-selected patients can be successfully rescued from life-threatening conditions by prolonging the therapeutic window to either solve the underlying problem or install a long-term assist device. Hypothermia, disease severity, initiation on weekends and haemorrhage during ECMO support increase the risk for mortality. In the case of decision making in a setting of limited (ICU) resources, the reported risk factors for mortality may be contemplable, especially when judging a possible ECMO support termination.

Indexed as

adverse eventscardiogenic shockcomplicationsECMOextracorporeal life supporthypothermiamortalityrespiratory failurerewarmingrisk factors

Identifiers

PMID35268314
PMCPMC8911127

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.