ArticleResuscitation plus2026
VA-ECMO in high-risk pulmonary embolism: outcomes and role as bridge to recovery.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-risk pulmonary embolism (HRPE) with hemodynamic instability or cardiac arrest carries an in-hospital mortality rate of nearly 30%. VA-ECMO can stabilize acute RV failure and serve as a bridge to therapy or recovery. Due to the heterogeneous utilization of VA-ECMO in HRPE, its ideal application is uncertain. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 28 HRPE patients meeting ESC/AHA criteria treated with VA-ECMO at a tertiary center (2017-2024). Clinical, procedural, and outcome data were analyzed, with comparisons between survivors and non-survivors to hospital discharge. Results: Mean age was 52 years; 57.1% survived to discharge. Cardiac arrest occurred in 78.6%. Patients with cardiac arrest had similar survival to non-arrest patients ( Conclusions: VA-ECMO achieved a 57.1% survival to discharge, consistent with prior studies. No significant survival differences were found between patients with or without cardiac arrest, pre-ECMO thrombolysis, or mobile versus in-hospital ECMO. Thrombolysis increased bleeding without improving outcomes. Mobile ECMO provided rapid support with comparable survival rates. Half the survivors recovered without adjunctive therapies, highlighting ECMO's role as a bridge to recovery. Larger studies are needed to optimize protocols.
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.