Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36195759›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2022

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of mortality and complications.

Sasa Rajsic, Benedikt Treml, Dragana Jadzic, Robert Breitkopf, Christoph Oberleitner, Marina Popovic Krneta, Zoran Bukumiric

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Risk for sepsis during mechanical circulatory support★.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Sasa Rajsic *Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Benedikt Treml *Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Dragana JadzicAnesthesia and Intensive Care Department, Pain Therapy Service, Cagliari University, Cagliari, Italy.
Robert BreitkopfDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Christoph OberleitnerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria.
Marina Popovic KrnetaInstitute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia.
Zoran BukumiricInstitute of Medical Statistics and Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia. zoran.bukumiric@med.bg.ac.rs.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6193-3662
Innsbruck Medical University · ATOncology Institute of Vojvodina · RSUniversity of Belgrade · RSUniversity of Cagliari · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVenoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (va-ECMO) is an advanced life support for critically ill patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. This temporary support bridges time for recovery, permanent assist, or transplantation in patients with high risk of mortality. However, the benefit of this modality is still subject of discussion and despite the continuous development of critical care medicine, severe cardiogenic shock remains associated with high mortality. Therefore, this work aims to analyze the current literature regarding in-hospital mortality and complication rates of va-ECMO in patients with cardiogenic shock.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the most recent literature to analyze the outcomes of va-ECMO support. Using the PRISMA guidelines, Medline (PubMed) and Scopus (Elsevier) databases were systematically searched up to May 2022. Meta-analytic pooled estimation of publications variables was performed using a weighted random effects model for study size.

resultsThirty-two studies comprising 12756 patients were included in the final analysis. Between 1994 and 2019, 62% (pooled estimate, 8493/12756) of patients died in the hospital. More than one-third of patients died during ECMO support. The most frequent complications were renal failure (51%, 693/1351) with the need for renal replacement therapy (44%, 4879/11186) and bleeding (49%, 1971/4523), bearing the potential for permanent injury or death. Univariate meta-regression analyses identified age over 60 years, shorter ECMO duration and presence of infection as variables associated with in-hospital mortality, while the studies reporting a higher incidence of cannulation site bleeding were unexpectedly associated with a reduced in-hospital mortality.

conclusionsExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation is an invasive life support with a high risk of complications. We identified a pooled in-hospital mortality of 62% with patient age, infection and ECMO support duration being associated with a higher mortality. Protocols and techniques must be developed to reduce the rate of adverse events. Finally, randomized trials are necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of va-ECMO in cardiogenic shock.

Indexed as

Adverse eventsCardiogenic shockComplicationsECMOExtracorporeal life supportMortalityVenoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Identifiers

PMID36195759
PMCPMC9532225
OpenAlexW4301372687

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.