ArticleWorld journal of transplantation2025
Comparison of a direct
Article in World journal of transplantation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Future of Cardiovascular Subspecialty Training.JACC. Advances · 2026Review
- Outcomes of patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: DirectWorld journal of transplantation · 2025Article
- Role of advanced heart failure and transplant teams in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation management.World journal of transplantation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvanced heart failure and transplant (AHFTC) teams are crucial in the management of patients in cardiogenic shock. We sought to explore the impact of AHFTC physicians on outcomes in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support.
aimTo determine whether outcomes differ in the care of ECMO patients when AHFTC physicians serve in a primary
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 51 patients placed on veno-venous (VV) and veno-arterial (VA) ECMO between January 2015 and February 2023 at our institution. We compared ECMO outcomes between teams managed primarily by intensivists
resultsFor combined VA and VV ECMO patients, survival to 30 days post discharge in the AHFTC cohort was significantly higher (67%
conclusionThis study suggests that patients in shock requiring VA ECMO support may have improved survival 30 days after hospital discharge when an AHFTC team serves in a direct role in the selection and management of patients. Further studies are needed to validate this impact.
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.