Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39720488›Full record

ReviewUS cardiology2021

Extracorporeal Life Support for Cardiac Arrest and Cardiogenic Shock.

Andrea Elliott, Garima Dahyia, Rajat Kalra, Tamas Alexy, Jason Bartos, Marinos Kosmopoulos, Demetri Yannopoulos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in US cardiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Andrea ElliottDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN.
Garima DahyiaDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN.
Rajat KalraDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN.
Tamas AlexyDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN.
Jason BartosDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN.
Marinos KosmopoulosDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Center for Resuscitation Medicine, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN.
Demetri YannopoulosDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rising incidence and recognition of cardiogenic shock has led to an increase in the use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). As clinical experience with this therapy has increased, there has also been a rapid growth in the body of observational and randomized data describing the clinical and logistical considerations required to institute a VA-ECMO program with successful clinical outcomes. The aim of this review is to summarize this contemporary data in the context of four key themes that pertain to VA-ECMO programs: the principles of patient selection; basic hemodynamic and technical principles underlying VA-ECMO; contraindications to VA-ECMO therapy; and common complications and intensive care considerations that are encountered in the setting of VA-ECMO therapy.

Indexed as

cardiac arrestcardiogenic shockextracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitationhemodynamic supportleft ventricular unloadingmechanical circulatory supportVeno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Identifiers

PMID39720488
PMCPMC11664775

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.