Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39077191›Full record

ArticleReviews in cardiovascular medicine2022

Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in High-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: A Case Series and Literature Review.

Zied Ltaief, Ermes Lupieri, Jean Bonnemain, Nawfel Ben-Hamouda, Valentina Rancati, Sabine Schmidt Kobbe, Matthias Kirsch, Jean-Daniel Chiche, Lucas Liaudet

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Pulmonary embolism consensus.Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Editorial: Organ support in cardiac intensive care.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

9 authors.

Zied LtaiefService of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ermes LupieriService of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Jean BonnemainService of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nawfel Ben-HamoudaService of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Valentina RancatiService of Anesthesiology, Lausanne University Hospital, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Sabine Schmidt KobbeService of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Matthias KirschService of Cardiac Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Jean-Daniel ChicheService of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.
Lucas LiaudetService of Adult Intensive Care Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital, 1010 Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: High-risk Pulmonary Embolism (PE) has an ominous prognosis and requires emergent reperfusion therapy, primarily systemic thrombolysis (ST). In deteriorating patients or with contraindications to ST, Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO) may be life-saving, as supported by several retrospective studies. However, due to the heterogeneous clinical presentation (refractory shock, resuscitated cardiac arrest (CA) or refractory CA), the real impact of VA-ECMO in high-risk PE remains to be fully determined. In this study, we present our centre experience with VA-ECMO for high-risk PE. Method: From 2008 to 2020, we analyzed all consecutive patients treated with VA-ECMO for high-risk PE in our tertiary 35-bed intensive care unit (ICU). Demographic variables, types of reperfusion therapies, indications for VA-ECMO (refractory shock or refractory CA requiring extra-corporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ECPR), hemodynamic variables, initial arterial blood lactate and ICU complications were recorded. The primary outcome was ICU survival, and secondary outcome was hospital survival. Results: Our cohort included 18 patients (9F/9M, median age 57 years old). VA-ECMO was indicated for refractory shock in 7 patients (2 primary and 5 following resuscitated CA) and for refractory CA in 11 patients. Eight patients received anticoagulation only, 9 received ST, and 4 underwent surgical embolectomy. ICU survival was 1/11 (9%) for ECPR vs 3/7 (42%) in patients with refractory shock ( Conclusions: VA-ECMO for high-risk PE has very different outcomes depending on the clinical context. Furthermore, VA-ECMO was associated with significant bleeding complications, with more severe consequences following systemic thrombolysis. Future studies on VA-ECMO for high-risk PE should therefore take into account the distinct clinical presentations and should determine the best strategy for reperfusion in such circumstances.

Indexed as

cardiac arrestcardiopulmonary resuscitationextra-corporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR)obstructive cardiogenic shockpulmonary embolismveno-arterial extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO)

Identifiers

PMID39077191
PMCPMC11273876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.