ArticleJTCVS open2022
Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure: A multicenter study.
Article in JTCVS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gene expression profiles in respiratory settings in rats under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Relationship between the Pre-ECMO and ECMO Time and Survival of Severe COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic presents a high mortality rate amongst patients who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) in COVID-19-related ARDS and identify the patients who benefit the most from this procedure. Methods: Adult patients with COVID-19 and severe ARDS requiring VV-ECMO support at 4 academic institutions between March and October 2020 were included. Data were collected through retrospective chart reviews. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed with the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. Results: Fifty-one consecutive patients underwent VV-ECMO with a mean age of 50.4 years; 64.7% were men. Survival to hospital discharge was 62.8%. Median intensive care unit and hospitalization duration were 27.4 days (interquartile range [IQR], 17-37 days) and 34.5 days (IQR, 23-43 days), respectively. Survivors and nonsurvivors had a median ECMO cannulation time of 11 days (IQR, 8-18) and 17 days (IQR, 12-25 days). The average postdecannulation length of stay was 17.5 days (IQR, 12.4-25 days) for survivors and 0 days for nonsurvivors (IQR, 0-6 days). Only 1 nonsurvivor was able to be decannulated. Clinical characteristics associated with mortality between nonsurviors and survivors included increasing age ( Conclusions: This multicenter study confirms the effectiveness of VV-ECMO in selected critically ill patients with COVID-19-related severe ARDS. The survival of these patients is comparable to non-COVID-19-related ARDS.
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.