ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Central veno-arterial ECMO via an aortic prosthetic graft as significant alternative to peripheral ECMO cannulation: evaluation of patient outcomes in infarct-related cardiogenic shock.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor patients presenting with cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial ischaemia, veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is often the only potential lifesaving intervention remaining when revascularisation does not immediately improve the patient’s condition. A relatively recent cannulation technique involves using an end-to-side prosthetic graft sewn onto the ascending aorta to allow the inflow cannula to be inserted outside the chest. There is no literature on this cannulation method compared to traditional peripheral ECMO. We performed a comprehensive analysis to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of this technique providing valuable insights into patient outcomes.
methodsA total of 65 patients suffering from severe, infarct-related cardiogenic shock were supported with ECMO at the University Hospital Magdeburg between 2014 and 2022. The patients were divided into two groups: a central ECMO group of 33 patients and a peripheral ECMO group consisting of 32 patients. We compared the pre-implantation laboratory parameters as well as laboratory parameters on the third day of ECMO, post-implanatation complications, and survival rates in both the groups.
resultsThe primary outcome of the study was survival. Patients who received central ECMO exhibited a higher 60-day survival rate (54.5%) in comparison to those who received peripheral ECMO (28.1%) (p = 0.031). With regard to secondary outcomes, patients receiving central ECMO exhibited a higher incidence of bleeding events (56.3% versus 84.8%, p = 0.011), along with a greater prevalence of hemothorax (21.9% versus 53.1%, p = 0.013) and mucosal bleeding (12.5% versus 48.5%, p = 0.002). Conversely, patients with peripheral ECMO exhibited a higher incidence of acute leg ischaemia (18.8% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.041).
conclusionThe application of central ECMO with a prosthesis on the ascending aorta can effectively support patients experiencing cardiogenic shock due to acute myocardial ischaemia. However, more careful hemostasis is required to minimise bleeding, especially hemothorax.
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.