ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Response to Prone Position in COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Patients with Severe ARDS Supported by vvECMO.
Article in Journal of clinical 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung-protective ventilation combined with prolonged and repeated prone position (PP) is recommended. For the most severe patients for whom this strategy failed, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO) allows a reduction in ventilation-induced lung injury and improves survival. Some aggregated data have suggested a benefit regarding survival in pursuing PP during vv-ECMO. The combination of PP and vv-ECMO has been also documented in COVID-19 studies, although there is scarce evidence concerning respiratory mechanics and gas exchange response. The main objective was to compare the physiological response of the first PP during vv-ECMO in two cohorts of patients (COVID-19-related ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS) regarding respiratory system compliance (C
methodsThis was a single-center, retrospective, and ambispective cohort study in the ECMO center of Marseille, France. ECMO was indicated according to the EOLIA trial criteria.
resultsA total of 85 patients were included, 60 in the non-COVID-19 ARDS group and 25 in the COVID-19-related ARDS group. Lung injuries of the COVID-19 cohort exhibited significantly higher severity with a lower C
conclusionWe found distinct physiological responses to the first PP in vv-ECMO-supported ARDS patients according to the COVID-19 etiology. This could be due to higher severity at baseline or specificity of the disease. Further investigations are warranted.
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.