ArticleEuropean heart journal open2024
The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock: a narrative review.
Article in European heart journal open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of the predictive value of critical care echocardiography for weaning outcomes in patients with VA-ECMO-assisted cardiogenic shock.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Equity at the Intersection of Heart Failure and Interventions: A Review of the Spectrum From Ambulatory Care to Cardiogenic Shock.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Cardiogenic shock (CS) develops in up to 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and carries a 50% risk of mortality. Despite the paucity of evidence regarding its benefits, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in clinical practice in patients with AMI in CS (AMI-CS). This review aims to provide an in-depth description of the four available randomized controlled trials to date designed to evaluate the benefit of VA-ECMO in patients with AMI-CS. Methods and results: The literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify the four relevant randomized control trials from years of inception to October 2023. Despite differences in patient selection, nuances in trial conduction, and variability in trial endpoints, all four trials (ECLS-SHOCK I, ECMO-CS, EUROSHOCK, and ECLS-SHOCK) failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit with the use of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS, with high rates of device-related complications. However, the outcome of these trials is nuanced by the limitations of each study that include small sample sizes, challenging patient selection, and high cross-over rates to the intervention group, and lack of use of left ventricular unloading strategies. Conclusion: The presented literature of VA-ECMO in CS does not support its routine use in clinical practice. We have yet to identify which subset of patients would benefit most from this intervention. This review emphasizes the need for designing adequately powered trials to properly assess the role of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS, in order to build evidence for best practices.
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.