Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37215539›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023

Randomized controlled trial of ultra-protective vs. protective ventilation strategy in veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients with refractory cardiogenic shock: a study protocol for the ultra-ECMO trial.

Wei Li, Chen Chen, Deliang Hu, Feng Sun, Gang Zhang, Zhongman Zhang, Yanbin Dong, Jinru Lv, Yong Mei, Xufeng Chen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 54% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wei LiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Chen ChenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Deliang HuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Feng SunDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Gang ZhangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Zhongman ZhangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Yanbin DongDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Jinru LvDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Yong MeiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Xufeng ChenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Jiangsu Province Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A protective or ultra-protective tidal volume strategy is widely applied to patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The use of very low tidal volume has the potential to further redece ventilation-induced lung injury (VILI) comparde with a "normal" lung protective management. Plus, cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE) caused by hydrostatic mechanisms in patients with cardiogenic shock has similar respiratory mechanics to those found in patients with ARDS. And no consensus exists on mechanical ventilation parameter settings in patients with VA-ECMO. The study aimed to investigate the impact of an ultra-protective tidal volume strategy on the 28-day ventilator-free day (VFD) number in VA-ECMO-supported patients with refractory cardiogenic shock, including cardiac arrest. Methods: The Ultra-ECMO trial is a randomized controlled, open-label, single-center prospective superiority trial. At the onset of ECMO initiation, we will divide patients randomly into an intervention group and a control group in a 1:1 ratio. The control group will adopt protective ventilation settings [initial tidal volume: 6 ml/kg of predicted body weight (PBW)] for ventilation, and the intervention group will adopt ultra-protective ventilation settings (initial tidal volume: 4 ml/kg of PBW) for ventilation. The procedure is expected to last 72 h, after which the ventilator settings will be at the intensivists' discretion. The primary outcome is the VFD number at 28 days after inclusion. The secondary outcomes will include respiratory mechanics; analgesic/sedation dosage; lung ultrasound score; interleukin-6, interleukin-8, and monocyte chemotactic protein-1 levels in broncho-alveolar lavage fluid at the moment of enrollment (T0), 24, 48, and 72 h (T1, T2, and T3, respectively) after ECMO initiation; total time (in days) required for ECMO weaning; length of stay in the intensive care unit; total cost of hospitalization; amounts of resuscitative fluids; and in-hospital mortality. Discussion: VA-ECMO-treated patients without ARDS possess abnormal lung function. CPE, thoracic compliance reduction, and poor pulmonary blood perfusion are frequently present, and these patients can more easily progress to ARDS. It seems that targeting the protective tidal volume can lower adverse outcome incidence rates, even in patients without ARDS. This trial seeks to answer the question of whether adopting an ultra-protective tidal volume strategy can lead to superior primary and secondary outcomes compared to adopting a protective tidal volume strategy in patients treated by VA-ECMO. The Ultra-ECMO trial will provide an innovative mechanical ventilation strategy for VA-ECMO-supported patients for improving treatment outcomes at biological and potentially clinical levels. Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2200067118.

Indexed as

cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE)protective ventilationultra-protective ventilationveno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO)ventilator-free days

Identifiers

PMID37215539
PMCPMC10196449
OpenAlexW4377563880

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.