ArticleCureus2024
Cardiac Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Community Cardiac Surgery Program: Are the Results Comparable?
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) outcomes in small centers are commonly considered less favorable than in large-volume centers. New ECMO protocols and procedures were established in our regional community hospital system as part of a cardiogenic shock initiative. This retrospective study aims to evaluate the outcomes of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in a community hospital system with cardiac surgery capability and assess whether protocol optimization and cannulation standards result in comparable outcomes to larger centers whether the outcomes of this new ECMO program at the community hospital setting were comparable to the United States averages.
methodsOur regional system comprises five hospitals with 1500 beds covering southwestern New Jersey, with only one of these hospitals having cardiac surgery and ECMO capability. In May 2021, the new ECMO program was initiated. Patients were screened by a multidisciplinary call, cannulated by our ECMO team, and subsequently treated by the designated team. We reviewed our cardiac ECMO outcomes over two years, from May 2021 to April 2023, in patients who required ECMO due to cardiogenic shock or as a part of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR).
resultsA total of 60 patients underwent cardiac ECMO, and all were VA ECMO, including 18 (30%) patients who required ECPR for cardiac arrest. The overall survival rate for our cardiac ECMO program turned out to be 48% (29/60), with 50% (22/42) in VA ECMO excluding ECPR and 39% (7/18) in the ECPR group. The hospital survival rate for the VA ECMO and ECPR groups was 36% (15/42) and 28% (5/18), respectively. The ELSO-reported national average for hospital survival is 48% for VA ECMO and 30% for ECPR. Considering these benchmarks, the hospital survival rate of our program did not significantly lag behind the national average.
conclusionsWith protocol, cannulation standards, and ECMO management optimized, the VA ECMO results of a community hospital system with cardiac surgery capability were not inferior to those of larger centers.
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.