ReviewHereditas2025
Challenges of ECMO use for severe trauma: a narrative review.
Review in Hereditas, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with severe trauma are at high risk of developing life-threatening complications, including acute respiratory failure and circulatory collapse. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) offers critical support when conventional therapies fail. This narrative review aimed to analyze the clinical application of ECMO in patients with severe trauma, focusing on indications, complications, prognostic factors, and future directions.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies published between January 2000 and April 2025. Sources included original research articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, supplemented by relevant clinical guidelines and expert consensus statements pertaining to ECMO use in trauma care.
resultsVeno-venous ECMO has been primarily utilized in patients with trauma-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome, while veno-arterial ECMO has been employed in the management of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest. Reported survival rates were 72.3% for veno-venous ECMO and 39.0% for veno-arterial ECMO. ECMO has also been used in patients with traumatic brain injury and those undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, although randomized controlled trial data remain limited Major complications include infection, hemorrhage, and thrombosis, which require coordinated prevention and management strategies. Prognostic tools such as the New Injury Severity Score, Simplified Acute Physiology Score III, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score are used in clinical evaluation, though trauma-specific models are still lacking.
conclusionECMO offers a supportive treatment modality in the management of patients with severe trauma. To improve clinical outcomes, further development of trauma-specific decision tools, multicenter studies, and standardized protocols for anticoagulation and infection control is necessary to support individualized care.
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.