SynthesisLancet (London, England)2023
Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials.
Synthesis in Lancet (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 8 of them syntheses 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
84 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 184 citations in OpenAlex.
- Determinants and Health Outcomes of Digital Health Literacy in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian Clinical Guideline for Diagnosing and Managing Acute Coronary Syndromes 2025.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Guideline
- [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Guideline
- SCAI/EAPCI/ACVC Expert Consensus Statement on Cardiogenic Shock in Women.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Guideline
- IMPELLA COMPARED TO VENOARTERIAL EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION IN CARDIOGENIC SHOCK: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF PROPENSITY SCORE-MATCHED STUDIES.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2025Pooled it
- Outcome and complications in postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock treated with extracorporeal life support - a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Cost-Utility of Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Refractory Cardiogenic Shock: A Brazilian Perspective Study.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Pooled it
- Cardiac index, SvOCritical care (London, England) · 2025Trial
- Timing of IABP initiation and its impact on outcomes in acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock: insights from a bi-center retrospective study.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Observational
- Antithrombotic strategies and outcomes in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock requiring short-term mechanical circulatory support.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Temporal Trends in Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction in South Korea.Korean circulation journal · 2026Article
- The Persistent Challenge of Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From a Korean Nationwide Registry.Korean circulation journal · 2026Article
- Emergency department eCPR: an exploratory observational study of human factors.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Mechanical Support in Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock: What Have We Learned from Trials?Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Postmyocardial infarction ventricular septal defect outcomes: Partial versus full presurgical hemodynamic support.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Challenges of Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Cardiogenic Shock: Real-World Outcomes.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2026Article
- Large language models for risk-of-bias assessment in randomised clinical trials-a comparative validation study.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- [65/m in cardiogenic shock : Preparation for the medical specialist examination: part 1].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Article
- Short-Term Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support in Acute Coronary Syndrome with Cardiogenic Shock: Which Device to Choose?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
19 authors at 12 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVenoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in patients with cardiogenic shock despite the lack of evidence from adequately powered randomised clinical trials. Three trials reported so far were underpowered to detect a survival benefit; we therefore conducted an individual patient-based meta-analysis to assess the effect of VA-ECMO on 30-day death rate.
methodsRandomised clinical trials comparing early routine use of VA-ECMO versus optimal medical therapy alone in patients presenting with infarct-related cardiogenic shock were identified by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and trial registries until June 12, 2023. Trials were included if at least all-cause death rate 30 days after in-hospital randomisation was reported and trial investigators agreed to collaborate (ie, providing individual patient data). Odds ratios (ORs) as primary outcome measure were pooled using logistic regression models. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023431258).
findingsFour trials (n=567 patients; 284 VA-ECMO, 283 control) were identified and included. Overall, there was no significant reduction of 30-day death rate with the early use of VA-ECMO (OR 0·93; 95% CI 0·66-1·29). Complication rates were higher with VA-ECMO for major bleeding (OR 2·44; 95% CI 1·55-3·84) and peripheral ischaemic vascular complications (OR 3·53; 95% CI 1·70-7·34). Prespecified subgroup analyses were consistent and did not show any benefit for VA-ECMO (p
interpretationVA-ECMO did not reduce 30-day death rate compared with medical therapy alone in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock, and an increase in major bleeding and vascular complications was observed. A careful review of the indication for VA-ECMO in this setting is warranted.
fundingFoundation Institut für Herzinfarktforschung.
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.