ArticleJTCVS open2025
Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation with mechanical chest compression for cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A porcine model study.
Article in JTCVS open, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) using a dual-lumen cannula coupled with continuous mechanical chest compressions (cMCC) for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and compare it with venoarterial (VA) ECMO or cMCC only, in a preclinical model. Methods: Twenty-three pigs were allocated into 3 experimental groups: cMCC using a LUCAS 3 compression device, VA-ECMO, and cMCC + VV-ECMO. After cannulation, ventricular fibrillation was induced and circulatory support initiated per allocation. Defibrillation occurred after 30 minutes of support initiation. Hemodynamic, echocardiographic, and laboratory measurements were collected at different timepoints. The primary outcome was the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Results: ROSC was achieved in 1 of 8 of animals with cMCC only (13%), 5 of 7 (71%) animals with cMCC + VV-ECMO, and 8 of 8 (100%) animals with VA-ECMO. cMCC + VV-ECMO was associated with a significantly greater ROSC rate as compared with compressions alone ( Conclusions: cMCC in association with VV-ECMO using a single dual-lumen femoral cannula may be a viable option of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, potentially leading to greater rates of ROSC when compared with cMCC alone. Additional studies are needed to determine whether this strategy could serve as an early alternative to VA-ECMO in the out-of-hospital cardiac arrest setting.
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.