ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Perclose ProGlide closure devices vs. surgical removal for veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation decannulation: a meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis: percutaneous versus surgical VA-ECMO decannulation demonstrates no clear differences in most outcomes, with a signal toward lower infection.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2026Pooled it
- Alternative Arterial Access in Veno-Arterial ECMO: The Role of the Axillary Artery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Perclose ProGlide closure devices (PPCDs) have become a more commonly used strategy in veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) decannulation, but there is still uncertainty regarding their efficacy and safety compared to surgical removal (SR). Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the application results of the two methods in VA-ECMO decannulation. Methods: Data from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched through May 2024. Prospective or retrospective studies on the comparison of PPCDs and SR in VA-ECMO decannulation were included. The outcomes included technical success, bleeding events, infections at the decannulation site, vascular complications, overall complications, mortality and duration of hospitalisation. Results: Eight retrospective studies involving 618 patients were included. The results demonstrated that PPCDs significantly reduced infections at the decannulation site and overall complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05-0.44, Conclusion: Pre-closure techniques utilizing PPCDs demonstrate a significant advantage over SR in reducing the overall incidence of complications for VA-ECMO decannulation, particularly in terms of reducing infections at the decannulation site.
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.