ArticleCureus2023
Clinical Outcome Comparison of Patients Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation With or Without COVID-19 Infection.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation initiation timing and prognosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In severe COVID-19-related respiratory failure, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a useful modality that is used to provide effective oxygenation and ventilation to the patient. This descriptive study aimed to investigate and compare the outcomes between COVID-19-infected patients and patients who were not infected and required ECMO support. A retrospective study was undertaken on a cohort of 82 adult patients ([Formula: see text]18-year-old) who required venoarterial (VA-ECMO) and venovenous (VV-ECMO) ECMO between January 2019 and December 2022 in a single academic center. Patients who were cannulated for COVID-19-related respiratory failure (C-group) were compared to patients who were cannulated for non-COVID etiologies (non-group). Patients were excluded if data were missing regarding cannulation, decannulation, presenting diagnosis, and survival status. Categorical data were reported as counts and percentages, and continuous data were reported as means with 95% confidence intervals. Out of the 82 included ECMO patients, 33 (40.2%) were cannulated for COVID-related reasons, and 49 (59.8%) were cannulated for reasons other than COVID-19 infection. Compared to the non-group, the C-group had a higher in-hospital (75.8% vs. 55.1%) and overall mortality rate (78.8% vs. 61.2%). The C-group also had an average hospital length of stay (LOS) of 46.6 ± 13.2 days and an average intensive care unit (ICU) LOS of 44.1 ± 13.3 days. The non-group had an average hospital LOS of 24.8 ± 6.6 days and an average ICU LOS of 20.8 ± 5.9 days. Subgroup analysis of patients only treated with VV-ECMO yielded a greater in-hospital mortality rate for the C-group compared to the non-group (75.0% vs. 42.1%). COVID-19-infected patients may experience different morbidity and mortality rates as well as clinical presentations compared to non-COVID-infected patients when requiring ECMO support.
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.