Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39444297›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of heart failure2025

Timing of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in patients with cardiogenic shock.

Jonas Sundermeyer, Caroline Kellner, Benedikt N Beer, Angela Dettling, Lisa Besch, Stefan Blankenberg, Ingo Eitel, Derk Frank, Norbert Frey, Tobias Graf and 14 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Kidney Failure in Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation. Heart failure · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Applying DanGer Shock Eligibility Criteria to a Real-World Cohort of Cardiogenic Shock Patients.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Article
  6. What's new in heart failure? November 2025.European journal of heart failure · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
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

24 authors.

Jonas SundermeyerDepartment of Cardiology, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0076-2211
Caroline KellnerDepartment of Cardiology, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Benedikt N BeerDepartment of Cardiology, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Angela DettlingDepartment of Cardiology, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Lisa BeschDepartment of Cardiology, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Stefan BlankenbergDepartment of Cardiology, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Ingo EitelGerman Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Hamburg/Lübeck/Kiel, Hamburg, Germany.
Derk FrankGerman Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Hamburg/Lübeck/Kiel, Hamburg, Germany.
Norbert FreyDepartment of Internal Medicine III, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Tobias GrafGerman Center for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), Partner Site Hamburg/Lübeck/Kiel, Hamburg, Germany.
Paulus KirchhofDepartment of Cardiology, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Jannis KraisDepartment of Internal Medicine II, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Dirk von LewinskiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.
Norman MangnerDepartment of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Herzzentrum Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Sven Möbius-WinklerDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Jena, Jena, Germany.
Peter NordbeckDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Martin OrbanMedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Matthias PauschingerDepartment of Cardiology, Paracelsus Medical University Nürnberg, Nürnberg, Germany.
Can Martin SagDepartment of Internal Medicine II, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
Clemens SchererMedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I, Klinikum der Universität München, Munich, Germany.
Carsten SkurkDepartment of Cardiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin/German Centre for Cardiovascular, Berlin, Germany.
Holger ThieleDepartment of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, Heart Center Leipzig at University of Leipzig and Leipzig Heart Science, Leipzig, Germany.
Dirk WestermannDepartment of Cardiology and Angiology, University Heart Center, University Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Benedikt SchrageDepartment of Cardiology, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe optimal timing for implementing mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains indeterminate. This study aims to evaluate patient characteristics and outcome associated with the time interval between CS onset and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) implementation. METHODS AND

resultsIn this study, patients with CS treated with MCS at 15 tertiary care centres in three countries were enrolled. Patients treated with MCS were stratified into early (<2 h), intermediate (2-12 h) and delayed (≥12-24 h) MCS implantation by using the time interval between CS onset and MCS device implementation. Adjusted logistic and Cox regression models were fitted to assess the association between timing of MCS implementation, patient characteristics and 30-day mortality. A total of 330 patients with CS treated with VA-ECMO and/or microaxial flow pump were included in this study; 20.9% received early, 55.8% intermediate, and 23.3% delayed MCS. Although crude 30-day mortality was slightly lower in patients with early MCS (58.1% vs. 64.7% vs. 64.3%), adjusted analyses showed no significant association between timing of MCS implantation and 30-day all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] for early vs. intermediate MCS: 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59-1.46, p = 0.74; HR for early vs. delayed MCS: 1.29, 95% CI 0.78-2.13, p = 0.33). Moreover, the incidence of complications, related and unrelated to MCS, did not differ significantly among groups.

conclusionIn this exploratory study of patients with CS treated with MCS, the timing of device implantation within 24 h after CS onset was not associated with mortality. This supports a restrictive MCS approach, reserving its application for patients experiencing CS deterioration despite conventional therapy.

Indexed as

Extracorporeal Membrane OxygenationShock, CardiogenicTime-to-TreatmentAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeCardiogenic shockExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationMechanical circulatory supportTiming

Identifiers

PMID39444297
PMCPMC11798633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.