SynthesisBMC pulmonary medicine2024
Long-term lung function recovery after ECMO versus non-ECMO management in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is increasingly employed to support lung function in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF). However, the long-term outcomes of the approach have not been encouraging when compared to those of conventional mechanical ventilation. Further, the long-term effects of ECMO on lung function and recovery are unclear. For this review, we examined the long-term lung function outcomes of patients with ARF treated with and without ECMO.
methodsWe searched the Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and PubMed sites for studies comparing long-term (≥ 6 months) pulmonary function test results in patients with ARF treated with and without ECMO published until January 2024. We conducted a meta-analysis for percentage predicted values.
resultsWe included five studies. Our meta-analysis showed similar values of forced vital capacity (FVC%) (MD, 0.47; 95% CI, -3.56-4.50) and forced expiratory flow in the first second % (MD, 1.79; 95% CI, -2.17-5.75) in patients with ARF treated with or without ECMO. The FEV1/FVC % values were slightly higher in patients treated with ECMO than in those without ECMO (MD, 2.03; 95% CI, 0.01-4.04; p-value = 0.05). According to the meta-analysis, the values for total lung capacity % (MD, -3.20; 95% CI, -8.83-2.44) and carbon monoxide diffusion capacity % (MD, -0.72; 95% CI, -3.83-2.39) were also similar between patients undergoing ECMO and those without it.
conclusionThe meta-analysis of a small number of studies with significant selection bias indicates that patients with ARF treated with ECMO may have comparable long-term pulmonary function recovery to those treated with conventional strategies. Further investigations including a larger number of patients and focusing on the long-term impact of ECMO are needed to supplement the current evidence.
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.