Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36600027›Full record

SynthesisIntensive care medicine2023

Prognostic models for mortality risk in patients requiring ECMO.

Lara C A Pladet, Jaimie M M Barten, Lisette M Vernooij, Carlos V Elzo Kraemer, Jeroen J H Bunge, Erik Scholten, Leon J Montenij, Marijn Kuijpers, Dirk W Donker, Olaf L Cremer and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Nomograms to predict outcome for patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment for septic shock.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

11 authors.

Lara C A PladetDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. c.l.a.pladet@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-4672-5691
Jaimie M M BartenDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Lisette M VernooijDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Carlos V Elzo KraemerDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jeroen J H BungeDepartment of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erik ScholtenDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Sint Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Leon J MontenijDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Marijn KuijpersDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Isala Hospital Zwolle, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Dirk W DonkerDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Olaf L CremerDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Christiaan L MeuweseDepartment of Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Achmea Stichting Gezondheidszorg Spaarneland
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo provide an overview and evaluate the performance of mortality prediction models for patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for refractory cardiocirculatory or respiratory failure.

methodsA systematic literature search was undertaken to identify studies developing and/or validating multivariable prediction models for all-cause mortality in adults requiring or receiving veno-arterial (V-A) or veno-venous (V-V) ECMO. Estimates of model performance (observed versus expected (O:E) ratio and c-statistic) were summarized using random effects models and sources of heterogeneity were explored by means of meta-regression. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of BiAS Tool (PROBAST).

resultsAmong 4905 articles screened, 96 studies described a total of 58 models and 225 external validations. Out of all 58 models which were specifically developed for ECMO patients, 14 (24%) were ever externally validated. Discriminatory ability of frequently validated models developed for ECMO patients (i.e., SAVE and RESP score) was moderate on average (pooled c-statistics between 0.66 and 0.70), and comparable to general intensive care population-based models (pooled c-statistics varying between 0.66 and 0.69 for the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score). Nearly all models tended to underestimate mortality with a pooled O:E > 1. There was a wide variability in reported performance measures of external validations, reflecting a large between-study heterogeneity. Only 1 of the 58 models met the generally accepted Prediction model Risk Of BiAS Tool criteria of good quality. Importantly, all predicted outcomes were conditional on the fact that ECMO support had already been initiated, thereby reducing their applicability for patient selection in clinical practice.

conclusionsA large number of mortality prediction models have been developed for ECMO patients, yet only a minority has been externally validated. Furthermore, we observed only moderate predictive performance, large heterogeneity between-study populations and model performance, and poor methodological quality overall. Most importantly, current models are unsuitable to provide decision support for selecting individuals in whom initiation of ECMO would be most beneficial, as all models were developed in ECMO patients only and the decision to start ECMO had, therefore, already been made.

Indexed as

Extracorporeal Membrane OxygenationRespiratory InsufficiencyAdultHospital MortalityHumansOrgan Dysfunction ScoresPrognosisRetrospective StudiesExtracorporeal life supportExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationMortality predictionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36600027
PMCPMC9944134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.