ArticleCureus2024
Potential Impact of Direct Versus Indirect Central Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO) Cannulation in Refractory Postcardiotomy Cardiogenic Shock.
Article in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Central venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a commonly employed strategy to support patients in refractory postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock (RPCS). This support can be provided using either indirect central ECMO (icECMO) with a closed thorax or direct central ECMO (dcECMO) with an open thorax. Methods This single-center retrospective analysis included 60 patients undergoing central VA-ECMO for RPCS from January 2019 to December 2020. The primary endpoint of this study is to compare 30-day survival outcomes between the icECMO and dcECMO approaches in RPCS patients. Secondary endpoints include the evaluation of adverse events and the identification of predictors that influence 30-day mortality. Results The study included 60 patients, 25 received icECMO and 35 treated with dcECMO due to RPCS. The icECMO group demonstrated significantly better 30-day survival rates (icECMO; 10 [40%] vs. dcECMO; 5 [14.3%], log-rank test; p=0.042). Despite comparable ECMO flow rate and ECMO RPM (rotations per minute) in the first day between the study groups ([icECMO; 4.5 l/min vs. dcECMO; 4.6 l/min, p=0.124], [icECMO; 3510 rpm vs. dcECMO; 3800 rpm, p=0.115], respectively), lactate levels were significantly higher in the dcECMO group on the 1st and 3rd post-extracorporeal life support (ECLS) days (p=0.006 and p=0.008, respectively). Gastrointestinal ischemia was more common in the dcECMO group (p=0.036). Successful ECMO weaning was more frequent in the icECMO group (56% vs. 22.9%, p=0.014). Multivariable logistic regression identified arterial lactate on the first day with a cutoff 4 mmol/l as an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality with Exp(B) of 8.9 (p=0.007). Conclusions Our findings suggest a potential survival advantage with the icECMO technique in patients undergoing central ECMO cannulation after RPCS. However, larger prospective studies are essential to confirm this observation.
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.