ReviewCureus2026
A Narrative Review on ECMO as a Bridge to Transplantation: Optimising Outcomes in Heart and Lung Failure.
Review in Cureus, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides short-term cardiopulmonary support for patients with end-stage heart and lung failure and is increasingly used as a bridge to transplantation. Its expanding clinical role has prompted the need to clarify how patient selection, timing of initiation, and complication risks influence transplant eligibility and outcomes. This review aims to evaluate contemporary evidence on ECMO as a bridge to heart and lung transplantation by outlining selection criteria, analysing the timing of intervention, summarising survival and complication data, and identifying the limitations that prevent consistent clinical standardisation. For the selection of articles, a narrative review approach was used. Articles were screened from PubMed and Rayyan, restricted to English-language studies published within the past 15 years, using the search terms "ECMO", "heart failure", and "lung failure". Paediatric studies and non-English literature were excluded. Across the literature, patient selection is guided by absolute contraindications (e.g., chronic multiorgan dysfunction, unrecoverable primary cardiac disease) and relative contraindications such as advanced age. Early initiation of ECMO is consistently associated with improved survival. The venoarterial (VA)-ECMO and venovenous (VV)-ECMO provide critical cardiac and respiratory support with varying survival outcomes; however, the therapy is associated with substantial clinical risks, including renal failure, significant bleeding, systemic infection, and vascular complications such as stroke or limb ischaemia. Prolonged bridging due to donor shortages further complicates outcomes and limits comparability across centres. Thus, it reinforces that ECMO is a crucial bridge to heart and lung transplantation. However, its effectiveness depends on precise patient selection, early and standardised initiation strategies, and unified clinical guidelines. Improved standardisation and consistent reporting are essential to optimise outcomes and strengthen long-term post-transplant evidence.
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.