ArticleJHLT open2026
Central versus peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during lung transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in JHLT open, 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
Introduction: The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during lung transplantation has progressively expanded and, in many centers, replaced conventional cardiopulmonary bypass. However, it remains unclear whether central or peripheral veno-arterial (VA) ECMO provides superior postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to compare central VA-ECMO (cVA-ECMO) and peripheral VA-ECMO (pVA-ECMO) during lung transplantation, with a focus on survival, primary graft dysfunction grade 3 (PGD3), postoperative ECMO support, and postoperative morbidity. Methods: Three databases were assessed through November 2025. Five retrospective observational studies including 866 patients were included. Overall survival was analyzed using reconstructed individual patient data derived from Kaplan-Meier curves. Random-effects models were applied for all pooled analyses. Results: There was no significant difference in overall survival (HR 1.224, p=0.13) and in PGD3 at 72 h incidence (OR 1.55; p=0.26) between cVA-ECMO and pVA-ECMO. However, pVA-ECMO was associated with a higher requirement for postoperative ECMO use (OR 6.05; p=0.04), longer duration of extracorporeal support (MD +1.61 days; p=0.01), prolonged mechanical ventilation (MD +2.73 days; p<0.01), and longer intensive care unit length of stay (MD +4.05 days; p<0.01). The risk of limb ischemia requiring invasive treatment was significantly higher with pVA-ECMO (OR 4.94; p=0.001). Conclusion: Although survival and PGD3 incidence were comparable, pVA-ECMO was associated with greater postoperative morbidity and vascular complications. These findings should be interpreted with caution, and cannulation strategy should be individualized according to patient risk profile, surgical context, and center-specific expertise rather than favoring one approach uniformly.
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.