ArticleHeliyon2023
Outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease versus other lung infections requiring venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanisms and clinical research progress of IL-6-mediated crosstalk between the alveolar microenvironment and the immune system in patients with severe pneumonia undergoing mechanical ventilation.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia: Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Anticoagulation management during veno-venous ECMO support because of ARDS: Single-center experience.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients with Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) often develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV), and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO).Mortality in COVID-19 patients on V-V ECMO was exceptionally high; therefore, whether survival can be ameliorated should be investigated. Methods: We collected data from 85 patients with severe ARDS who required ECMO support at the University Hospital Magdeburg from 2014 to 2021. The patients were divided into the COVID-19 group (52 patients) and the non-COVID-19 group (33 patients). Demographic and pre-, intra-, and post-ECMO data were retrospectively recorded. The parameters of mechanical ventilation, laboratory data before using ECMO, and during ECMO were compared. Results: There was a significant difference between the two groups regarding survival: 38.5% of COVID-19 patients and 63.6% of non-COVID-19 patients survived 60 days (p = 0.024). COVID-19 patients required V-V ECMO after 6.5 days of MV, while non-COVID-19 patients required V-V ECMO after 2.0 days of MV (p = 0.048). The COVID-19 group had a greater proportion of patients with ischemic heart disease (21.2% vs 3%, p = 0.019). The rates of most complications were comparable in both groups, whereas the COVID-19 group showed a significantly higher rate of cerebral bleeding (23.1 vs 6.1%, p = 0.039) and lung bacterial superinfection (53.8% vs 9.1%, p = <0.001). Conclusion: The higher 60-days mortality among patients with COVID-19 with severe ARDS was attributable to superinfection, a higher risk of intracerebral bleeding, and the pre-existing ischemic heart disease.
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.