ArticleHeliyon2024
Duration of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation before Veno-Venous ExtraCorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Covid-19 related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: The experience of a tertiary care center.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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.
- Pre-cannulation ventilation duration and the trajectory of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a nationwide competing-risks cohort study.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2026Article
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
Background: Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is an efficient ventilatory support in patients with refractory Covid-19-related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), however the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) before ECMO initiation as a contraindication is still controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of prolonged IMV prior to VV-ECMO in patients suffering from refractory Covid-19-related ARDS. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included all patients treated with VV-ECMO for refractory Covid-19-related ARDS between January 1, 2020 and May 31, 2022. The impact of IMV duration was investigated by comparing patients on VV-ECMO during the 7 days (and 10 days) following IMV with those assisted after 7 days (and 10 days). The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Results: Sixty-four patients were hospitalized in the ICU for Covid-19-related refractory ARDS requiring VV-ECMO. Global in-hospital mortality was 55 %. Median duration of IMV was 4 [2; 8] days before VV-ECMO initiation. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients assisted with IMV pre-VV-ECMO for a duration of ≤7 days (≤10 days) and those assisted after 7 days (and 10 days) (( Conclusion: This study suggests that patients assisted with VV-ECMO after prolonged IMV had the same prognosis than those assisted earlier in refractory Covid-19-related ARDS. Therefore, prolonged mechanical ventilation of more than 7-10 days should not contraindicate VV-ECMO support. An individual approach is necessary to balance the risks and benefits of ECMO in this population.
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.