ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2023
The efficacy of venous-arterial membrane oxygenation for emergency extracorporeal life support: results from a single-center large series over 6 years.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2023. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anticoagulation and associated complications in veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The efficacy of venous-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in supporting cardio-pulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest is still debated. This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of patients treated with VA-ECMO positioned according to different clinical indications. The method is retrospective data analysis from patients admitted to a tertiary referral center for VA-ECMO in 6 years. The study population was divided into three groups based on the VA-ECMO indication: patients with refractory cardiac arrest (CA group), cardiogenic shock after return of spontaneous circulation (CS-ROSC group), and cardiogenic shock without cardiac arrest (CS group). Seventy-nine patients underwent emergency VA-ECMO, 49 patients (62.0%) were in the CA group, 14 (17.7%) in the CS-ROSC group, and 16 patients (20.3%) in the CS group. The overall survival at 28 days was different between the three groups (6.1% in the CA group, 64.2% in the CS-ROSC group, and 50.0% in the CS group, p < 0.001) and remained significant at 12 months (p < 0.001). Furthermore, the Cerebral Performance Category at 12 months differed between groups with good outcomes in 4.1% of patients in CA, 50.0% in CS-ROSC, and 31.2% in CS groups (p < 0.001). In the studied population, emergency VA-ECMO had negligible efficacy in refractory cardiac arrest, while it was correlated with a good outcome in cardiogenic shock after cardiac arrest, such as in cardiogenic shock alone. Patients with ROSC appear to benefit from VA-ECMO in the setting of persistent shock at rates comparable to cardiogenic shock patients who never sustained cardiac arrest.
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.