ReviewEuropean journal of pediatrics2026
Follow-up of neonates who received ECMO: how are they doing?
Review in European journal of pediatrics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used since 1975 to provide temporary cardiorespiratory support in neonates, children, and adults with severe cardiopulmonary conditions unresponsive to conventional therapy. Initially focused on neonatal respiratory failure, ECMO indications have expanded to include older children with cardiac failure or post-cardiopulmonary arrest. Epidemiological data indicate a decline in neonatal respiratory ECMO cases over the recent decades, largely due to advances in conventional therapies. Conversely, neonatal cardiac ECMO has shown a more variable trend, often used perioperatively in congenital heart disease or for myocarditis, cardiomyopathy, and refractory arrhythmias. Survival rates remain relatively stable, although outcomes vary with underlying pathology and disease severity. Long-term follow-up of survivors reveals persistent respiratory, neurodevelopmental, and motor sequelae, particularly in patients with complex or chronic conditions such as congenital diaphragmatic hernia or hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. Pulmonary function deficits, cognitive impairments, hearing loss, and motor delays are frequently reported, with earlier rehabilitation and structured follow-up programs shown to improve functional recovery. Multicenter registries highlight the need for standardized assessment protocols to track long-term outcomes and guide interventions.
conclusionWhile neonatal ECMO has become a life-saving intervention for increasingly complex cases, ongoing efforts to refine patient selection, improve management strategies, and implement structured long-term follow-up are essential to minimize morbidity and maximize functional recovery in this vulnerable population. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Neonatal ECMO provides life-saving support for infants with severe cardiopulmonary failure when conventional therapies fail. • Survival rates vary depending on the underlying diagnosis, with respiratory ECMO generally showing higher survival than cardiac or extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation cases. WHAT IS NEW: • The neonatal ECMO population has become more complex, with higher-risk patients and more prolonged support requirements. • Long-term follow-up reveals that many ECMO survivors continue to face respiratory, neurological, or developmental sequelae.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41588134What 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.