ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
ECMO management in cardiogenic shock-specialized versus non-cardiogenic shock-specialized centers: a registry-based analysis.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData on the impact of center specialization on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) management in cardiogenic shock (CS) remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate differences in outcomes and management of patients with CS receiving ECMO in CS-specialized versus non-CS-specialized centers.
methodsThis registry-based study used data from the Chinese Society of Extracorporeal Life Support (CSECLS) registry. Adult patients diagnosed with CS and treated with ECMO were included. ECMO centers were categorized as CS-specialized or non-specialized based on the responsible department. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance patient characteristics and center experience. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality.
resultsA total of 1,415 adult patients were included from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021 (523 in CS-specialized centers, 892 in non-CS-specialized centers). The mean age was 53.2 ± 16.1 years, and 30.3% of patients were female. In-hospital mortality was lower in CS-specialized centers both before (P = 0.001) and after adjustment (P = 0.035). Patients in CS-specialized centers more frequently received intra-aortic balloon pumps (38.5% vs. 30.4%; P = 0.009), and were less likely to require mechanical ventilation (80.6% vs. 90.7%; P < 0.001) or continuous renal replacement therapy (42.7% vs. 49.8%; P = 0.030) than those in non-CS-specialized centers.
conclusionsTreatment in CS-specialized centers was independently associated with lower in-hospital mortality among patients receiving ECMO for circulatory support, even after adjusting for both patient-level characteristics and center-level experience.
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.