ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Mortality prediction in pediatric postcardiotomy veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A comparison of scoring systems.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-Term Mortality Among Pediatric Patients With Heart Diseases Undergoing Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Pooled it
- Association between liver function at hospital admission and mortality in pediatric patients receiving postcardiotomy venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support.World journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Versus Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation-Assisted CPR in Children: A Retrospective Analysis of Outcomes and Factors Associated with Conversion from the Former to the Latter.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pediatric postcardiotomy veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) patients have high mortality and morbidity. There are currently three scoring systems available to predict mortality: the Pediatric Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Prediction (PEP) model, Precannulation Pediatric Survival After VA-ECMO (Pedi-SAVE) score, and Postcannulation Pedi-SAVE score. These methods provide risk stratification scores for pediatric patients requiring ECMO for cardiac support. However, comparative validation of these scoring systems remains scarce. We aim to assess the ability of these models to predict outcomes in a cohort of pediatric patients undergoing VA-ECMO after cardiac surgery, and identify predictors of in-hospital mortality. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 101 children admitted to Fuwai Hospital who received VA-ECMO from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2020 was performed. Patients were divided into two groups, survivors ( Results: Postcannulation Pedi-SAVE score accessing the entire ECMO process had the greatest area under receiver operator curve (AUROC), 0.816 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.733-0.899]. Pre-ECMO PEP model could predict in-hospital mortality [AUROC = 0.691 (95% CI: 0.565-0.817)], and Precannulation Pedi-SAVE score had the poorest prediction [AUROC = 0.582(95% CI: 0.471-0.694)]. Lactate value at ECMO implantation [OR = 1.199 (1.064-1.351), Conclusion: Pediatric cardiac ECMO scoring systems, including multiple risk factors before and during ECMO, were found to be useful in this cohort. Both the pre-ECMO PEP model and the Postcannulation Pedi-SAVE score were found to have high predictive value for in-hospital mortality in pediatric postcardiotomy VA-ECMO.
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.