ArticleThe Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2024
Evolution of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation trigger criteria in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome.
Article in The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- ECMO in hinterland-feasibility and challenges (case-based narrative review).Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Commentary: Who and when to leave behind: Difficult decisions around extracorporeal membrane oxygenation selection in coronavirus disease 2019.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo understand the implications of a tiered extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) criteria framework and the outcomes of patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome who we were consulted on for ECMO but ultimately declined.
methodsAll patients declined for ECMO support by a large regional health care system between March 2020 and July 2021 were included. Restrictive selection criteria were enacted midway through the study stratifying the cohort into 2 groups. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included reasons for declining ECMO and survival stratified by phase.
resultsOne hundred ninety-three patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome were declined for ECMO within the study period out of 260 ECMO consults. At the time of consult, 71.0% (n = 137) were mechanically ventilated and 38% (n = 74) were proned and chemically paralyzed. Thirty-day mortality was 66% (n = 117), which increased from 53% to 73% (P = .010) when restrictive criteria were enacted. Patients with multisystem organ failure, prolonged ventilator time, and advanced age had respectively an 11-fold (odds ratio, 10.6; 95% CI, 1.7-65.2), 4-fold (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-12.0), and 4-fold (odds ratio, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.9-10.2) increase in the odds of mortality.
conclusionsPatients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome declined for ECMO represent a critically ill cohort. We observed an increase in the severity of disease and 30-day mortality in consults in the latter phase of our study period. These findings may reflect our use of tiered selection criteria coupled with ongoing education and communication with referring centers, sparing both patients likely to respond to medical therapy and those who were unsalvageable by 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.