SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Impact of left ventricular unloading timing on clinical outcomes in venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal timing of left ventricular unloading in patients with cardiogenic shock receiving venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy remains controversial. This systematic review evaluated the latest evidence on the impact of left ventricular unloading timing in patients with cardiogenic shock receiving venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
methodsThe PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to February 2025. The identified studies were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and eligible studies were subjected to quality assessment and data extraction. Heterogeneity testing and meta-analysis were performed using Review Manager software version 5.4.
resultsEight studies involving 2,117 patients (proactive unloading, 1,338; passive unloading, 779) were included in the meta-analysis, which revealed no statistically significant differences in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation weaning rates (relative risk = 1.06, 95% confidence interval: 0.87-1.28; P = 0.59), in-hospital mortality (relative risk = 0.95, 95% confidence interval: 0.86-1.04; P = 0.28), or 30-day all-cause mortality (relative risk = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.52-1.10; P = 0.14) between the proactive and passive unloading groups. However, the risks of sepsis (relative risk = 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.64-0.96; P = 0.02) and abdominal complications (relative risk = 0.67, 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.96; P = 0.03) were lower following proactive unloading than following passive unloading.
conclusionCompared to passive left ventricular unloading, proactive left ventricular unloading did not confer significant benefits in terms of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation weaning success or short-term survival outcomes, but was associated with reduced risks of sepsis and abdominal complications. REGISTRATION: The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024499028).
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.