ReviewJournal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures)2024
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as Circulatory Support in Adult Patients with Septic Shock: A Systematic Review.
Review in Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiac arrest caused by acute gastric dilatation in a bulimia patient: a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Nomograms to predict outcome for patients undergoing venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation treatment for septic shock.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2025Article
- ECMO in Refractory Septic Shock: Patient Selection, Timing and Hemodynamic Targets.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Modulates the Inflammatory Milieu and Organ Failure Trajectory in Severe COVID-19 and Sepsis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Rising Above the Limits of Critical Care ECMO: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The utilization of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in adult patients experiencing septic shock is a subject of ongoing debate within the medical community. This study aims to comprehensively address this issue through a systematic review conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Aim of Study: The primary objective of this study is to assess the outcomes of ECMO utilization in adult patients diagnosed with septic shock, thereby providing insights into the potential benefits and uncertainties associated with this treatment modality. Materials and Methods: Our research encompassed a thorough search across electronic databases for relevant English-language articles published up until April 2023. The inclusion criteria were based on studies reporting on ECMO usage in adult patients with septic shock. Among the eligible studies meeting these criteria, a total of eleven were included in our analysis, involving a cohort of 512 patients. The mean age of the participants was 53.4 years, with 67.38% being male. Results: In the pooled analysis, the mean survival rate following ECMO treatment was found to vary significantly across different ECMO modalities. Patients receiving venovenous-ECMO (VV-ECMO) and veno-venous-arterial ECMO (VVA-ECMO) demonstrated higher survival rates (44.5% and 44.4%, respectively) compared to those receiving venoarterial-ECMO (VA-ECMO) at 25% (p<0.05). A chi-square test of independence indicated that the type of ECMO was a significant predictor of survival (χ Conclusions: In septic shock patients, ECMO outcomes align with established indications like respiratory and cardiogenic shock. VV-ECMO and VVA-ECMO suggest better prognoses, though the optimal mode remains uncertain. Patient selection should weigh age and CPR need. Further research is vital to determine ECMO's best approach for 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.