ReviewJHLT open2026
Veno-venous versus Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for the management of primary graft dysfunction following lung transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in JHLT open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution in lung IRI cell death research: a 20-year global bibliometric study (2005-2024).Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Central versus peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during lung transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.JHLT open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Primary graft dysfunction (PGD) is the leading cause of early morbidity and mortality after lung transplantation. In its severe forms, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be required. However, there is no consensus on whether venovenous (VV) or venoarterial (VA) ECMO modality provides superior outcomes. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the use of VV-ECMO versus VA-ECMO in the management of grade 3 PGD after lung transplantation. Methods: Three databases were assessed. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included cerebrovascular complications, incidence of pneumonia, reintubation, acute kidney injury, ICU length of stay and ECMO duration. Hazard ratios (HR), odds ratios (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Reconstruction of time-to-event data and sensitivity analyses were performed for the primary endpoint. Results: Four studies including 210 patients (VV-ECMO: 142; VA-ECMO: 68) were analyzed. VV-ECMO was associated with improved early survival (HR 0.41; 95%CI 0.22 to 0.76; p=0.005) within the first 2 months after transplantation, although no significant difference was observed in long-term survival (HR 0.72; 95%CI 0.46 to 1.15; p=0.168). Cerebrovascular complications occurred significantly more often in the VA-ECMO group (OR 18.33; 95%CI 3.62 to 92.81; p=0.0004), while no significant differences were found in pneumonia, reintubation, acute renal failure, ICU length of stay, or ECMO duration. Conclusion: VV-ECMO appears to be associated with better short-term survival and fewer neurological complications compared to VA-ECMO in patients with grade 3 PGD after lung transplantation.
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.