Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39256830›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2024

Cardiopulmonary bypass and VA-ECMO induced immune dysfunction: common features and differences, a narrative review.

Mathieu Lesouhaitier, Félicie Belicard, Jean-Marc Tadié

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Heart-gut interaction in veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a forgotten axis in critical care perfusion.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Mathieu LesouhaitierInfectious Diseases and Intensive Care Unit, Pontchaillou University Hospital, 2 rue Henri Le Guilloux, 35033, Rennes, France. mathieu.lesouhaitier@gmail.com.
Félicie BelicardInfectious Diseases and Intensive Care Unit, Pontchaillou University Hospital, 2 rue Henri Le Guilloux, 35033, Rennes, France.
Jean-Marc TadiéInfectious Diseases and Intensive Care Unit, Pontchaillou University Hospital, 2 rue Henri Le Guilloux, 35033, Rennes, France. jeanmarc.tadie@chu-rennes.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation are critical tools in contemporary cardiac surgery and intensive care, respectively. While these techniques share similar components, their application contexts differ, leading to distinct immune dysfunctions which could explain the higher incidence of nosocomial infections among ECMO patients compared to those undergoing CPB. This review explores the immune modifications induced by these techniques, comparing their similarities and differences, and discussing potential treatments to restore immune function and prevent infections. The immune response to CPB and ECMO involves both humoral and cellular components. The kinin system, complement system, and coagulation cascade are rapidly activated upon blood contact with the circuit surfaces, leading to the release of pro-inflammatory mediators. Ischemia-reperfusion injury and the release of damage-associated molecular patterns further exacerbate the inflammatory response. Cellular responses involve platelets, neutrophils, monocytes, dendritic cells, B and T lymphocytes, and myeloid-derived suppressor cells, all of which undergo phenotypic and functional alterations, contributing to immunoparesis. Strategies to mitigate immune dysfunctions include reducing the inflammatory response during CPB/ECMO and enhancing immune functions. Approaches such as off-pump surgery, corticosteroids, complement inhibitors, leukocyte-depleting filters, and mechanical ventilation during CPB have shown varying degrees of success in clinical trials. Immunonutrition, particularly arginine supplementation, has also been explored with mixed results. These strategies aim to balance the inflammatory response and support immune function, potentially reducing infection rates and improving outcomes. In conclusion, both CPB and ECMO trigger significant immune alterations that increase susceptibility to nosocomial infections. Addressing these immune dysfunctions through targeted interventions is essential to improving patient outcomes in cardiac surgery and critical care settings. Future research should focus on refining these strategies and developing new approaches to better manage the immune response in patients undergoing CPB and ECMO.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary BypassExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationHumansAcquired immune dysfunctionsCardiopulmonary bypassExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Identifiers

PMID39256830
PMCPMC11389086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.