ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2025
UK consensus statement on priorities to support the process of withdrawal of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 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.
- Compassionate Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Discontinuation: A Narrative Review and Practical Process Model for Reliable End-of-Life Care.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with acute severe respiratory failure receiving veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) have high mortality risk. Management of the process of VV-ECMO withdrawal is challenging, especially in awake patients. Yet there is no guidance to guide clinicians to manage these morally distressing and ethically ambiguous decisions. The study aimed to establish consensus-based priorities for management of the process of VV-ECMO withdrawal to reduce practice variability and improve care quality.
methodsOur process for generating priority statements for consideration at our consensus meeting included semi-structured interviews and a scoping review. We recruited healthcare professionals with experience in VV-ECMO withdrawal to participate in interviews and a consensus meeting led by an independent facilitator. Using modified nominal group technique, participants discussed and voted on statements, categorising them as essential, desirable, or not required. A subsequent voting round identified key priorities for future research.
resultsDuring our item generation process, we interviewed 12 healthcare professionals with VV-ECMO expertise and identified 41 publications (21 empiric studies and 20 opinion pieces) focused on ECMO withdrawal. We developed 16 priority statements from this data, of which 17 participants representing seven UK ECMO centres considered eight as essential, six desirable, one not required; one was without consensus. Areas for future research highlighted were developing a standardised framework for managing disagreements; creating tools to enhance communication and documentation of information provided; and designing quality improvement strategies to ensure consistency in the clinical and technical aspects of VV-ECMO withdrawal.
conclusionsUsing rigorous methods, we have established consensus on eight essential and six desirable priorities for management of VV-ECMO withdrawal and three future research priorities. These consensus-based priorities should be viewed as a developmental step towards a standardised approach to support patients, family members, and clinicians through this challenging clinical situation.
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.