ArticleArchivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascular
[Impact of a multidisciplinary team "ECMO Team" on the prognosis of patients undergoing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for refractory cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest].
Article in Archivos peruanos de cardiologia y cirugia cardiovascular. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Veno-arterial Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) is a salvage intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS), and cardiac arrest (CA) refractory to standard therapies. The design of ECMO Teams has achieved the standardization of processes, although its impact on survival and prognosis is unknown. Objective: We aimed to analyze whether the creation of an ECMO Team has modified the prognosis of patients undergoing VA ECMO for refractory CS or CA. Materials and methods: . We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study. Patients with refractory CS or CA who underwent VA ECMO were divided in two consecutive periods: from 2014 to April 2019 (pre-ECMO T) and from May 2019 to December 2022 (Post ECMO T). The main outcomes were survival on ECMO, in-hospital survival, complications, and annual ECMO volume. Results: Eighty-three patients were included (36 pre-ECMO T and 47 post-ECMO T). The mean age was 53 +/-13 years. The most common reason for device indication was different: postcardiotomy shock (47.2%) pre-ECMO T and refractory cardiogenic shock (29.7%) post-ECMO T. The rate of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation was 14.5%. The median duration of VA ECMO was longer after ECMO team implementation: 8 days (IQR 5-12.5) vs. five days (IQR 2-9, p=0.04). Global in-hospital survival was 45.8% (38.9% pre-ECMO T vs. 51.1% post-ECMO T; p=0.37), and the survival rate from VA ECMO was 60.2% (55.6% pre-ECMO T vs 63.8% post-ECMO T; p= 0.50). The volume of VA ECMO implantation was significantly higher in the post-ECMO team period (13.2 +/3.5 per year vs. 6.5 +/-3.5 per year, p: 0.02). The rate of complications was similar in both groups. Conclusions: After the implementation of an ECMO team, there was no statistical difference in the survival rate of patients treated with VA ECMO. However, a significant increase in the number of patients supported per year was observed after the implementation of this multidisciplinary team. Post-ECMO T, the most common reason for device indication was cardiogenic shock, with longer run times and a higher rate of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
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.