ArticleAnnals of intensive care2024
Peripheral-to-central extracorporeal corporeal membrane oxygenation switch in refractory cardiogenic shock patients: outcomes and bridging strategies.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (pECMO) has become the first-line device in refractory cardiogenic shock (rCS). Some pECMO complications can preclude any bridging strategies and a peripheral-to-central ECMO (cECMO) switch can be considered as a bridge-to-decision. We conducted this study to appraise the in-hospital survival and the bridging strategies in patients undergoing peripheral-to-central ECMO switch.
methodsThis retrospective monocenter study included patients admitted to a ECMO-dedicated intensive care unit from February 2006 to January 2023. Patients with rCS requiring pECMO switched to cECMO were included. Patients were not included when the cECMO was the first mechanical circulatory support.
resultsEighty patients, with a median [IQR25-75] age of 44 [29-53] years at admission and a female-to-male sex ratio of 0.6 were included in the study. Refractory pulmonary edema was the main switching reason. Thirty patients (38%) were successfully bridged to: heart transplantation (n = 16/80, 20%), recovery (n = 10/80, 12%) and ventricle assist device (VAD, n = 4/30, 5%) while the others died on cECMO (n = 50/80, 62%). The most frequent complications were the need for renal replacement therapy (76%), hemothorax or tamponade (48%), need for surgical revision (34%), mediastinitis (28%), and stroke (28%). The in-hospital and one-year survival rates were 31% and 27% respectively. Myocardial infarction as the cause of the rCS was the only variable independently associated with in-hospital mortality (HR 2.5 [1.3-4.9], p = 0.009).
conclusionsThe switch from a failing pECMO support to a cECMO as a bridge-to-decision is a possible strategy for a very selected population of young patients with a realistic chance of heart function recovery or heart transplantation. In this setting, cECMO allows patients triage preventing from wasting expensive and limited resources.
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.