ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2025
Should I Change Anticoagulane in Veno-Venous ECMO?
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Alternate and Emerging Anticoagulation Strategies for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Due to a lack of high-quality data to guide anticoagulation therapy in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) patients, there is significant variation in practice among centers. We aimed to investigate the safety, anticoagulation efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of using bivaluridine as a primary anticoagulant without unfractionated heparin (UFH) in ECMO patients. Methods: The study population included patients undergoing Veno-Venous ECMO for acute respiratory distress syndrome. A total of 56 patients were evaluated, 25 were on UFH and 31 were on bivalirudin. Results: There was no significant difference between the time to reach the target activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) interval [6 (3.5-11) UFH, 9 (4-19) bivalirudin, P=0.287]. There was no significant difference between the percentage of time spent in the target aPTT interval (61.48±14.72 UFH, 62.65±11.99 bivaluridine, Conclusion: The use of bivaluridine as a primary anticoagulant does not lead to any decrease in anticoagulant efficacy.
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.