Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37965244›Full record

ReviewResuscitation plus2023

Wolf Creek XVII Part 7: Mechanical circulatory support.

Cindy H Hsu, George Trummer, Jan Belohlavek, Demetris Yannopoulos, Jason A Bartos

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Resuscitation plus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Cindy H HsuDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
George TrummerDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart Center Freiburg University, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Germany.
Jan Belohlavek2nd Department of Medicine - Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague, Czech Republic.
Demetris YannopoulosDepartment of Medicine-Cardiovascular Division, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Jason A BartosDepartment of Medicine-Cardiovascular Division, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
University of Minnesota · USCharles University · CZUniversity of Freiburg · DEUniversity of Michigan · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Failure to restore spontaneous circulation remains a major cause of death for cardiac arrest (CA) patients. Mechanical circulatory support, specifically extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), has emerged as a feasible and efficacious rescue strategy for selected refractory CA patients. Methods: Mechanical Circulatory Support was one of six focus topics for the Wolf Creek XVII Conference held on June 14-17, 2023 in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Conference invitees included international thought leaders and scientists in the field of CA resuscitation from academia and industry. Participants submitted via online survey knowledge gaps, barriers to translation and research priorities for each focus topic. Expert panels used the survey results and their own perspectives and insights to create and present a preliminary unranked list for each category that was debated, revised and ranked by all attendees to identify the top 5 for each category. Results: Top 5 knowledge gaps included optimal patient selection, pre-ECPR treatments, logistical and programmatic characteristics of ECPR programs, generalizability and effectiveness of ECPR, and prevention of reperfusion injury. Top 5 barriers to translation included cost/resource limitations, technical challenges, collaboration across multiple disciplines, limited patient population, and early identification of eligible patients. Top 5 research priorities focused on comparing the outcomes of prehospital/rapid transport strategies vs in-hospital ECPR initiation, implementation of high-performing ECPR system vs standard care, rapid patient identification tools vs standard clinical judgment, post-cardiac arrest bundled care vs no bundled care, and standardized ECPR clinical protocol vs routine care. Conclusion: This overview can serve as an innovative guide to transform the care and outcome of patients with refractory CA.

Indexed as

Cardiac arrestExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitationMechanical circulatory supportWolf Creek Conference

Identifiers

PMID37965244
PMCPMC10641702
OpenAlexW4388165084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.