ArticleJournal of chest surgery2022
Outcomes of Urgent Interhospital Transportation for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients.
Article in Journal of chest surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- ECMO Retrieval Program: What Have We Learned So Far.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) can be used in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock or respiratory failure. In South Korea, the need for transporting ECMO patients is increasing. Nonetheless, information on urgent transportation and its outcomes is scant. Methods: In this retrospective review of 5 years of experience in ECMO transportation at a single center, the clinical outcomes of transported patients were compared with those of in-hospital patients. The effects of transportation and the relationship between insertion-departure time and survival were also analyzed. Results: There were 323 cases of in-hospital ECMO (in-hospital group) and 29 cases transferred to Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital without adverse events (mobile group). The median transportation time was 95 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 36.5-119.5 minutes), whereas the median transportation distance was 115 km (IQR, 15-115 km). Transportation itself was not an independent risk factor for 28-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.818; IQR, 0.381-1.755; p=0.605), long-term mortality (OR, 1.099; IQR, 0.680-1.777; p=0.700), and failure of ECMO weaning (OR, 1.003; IQR, 0.467-2.152; p=0.995) or survival to discharge (OR, 0.732; IQR, 0.337-1.586; p=0.429). After adjustment for covariates, no significant difference in the ECMO insertion-departure time was found between the survival and mortality groups (p=0.435). Conclusion: The outcomes of urgent transportation, with active involvement of the ECMO center before ECMO insertion and adherence to the transport protocol, were comparable to those of in-hospital ECMO patients.
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.