ArticleCritical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine2026
Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in high-risk (HR) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Article in Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 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
Objective: Mechanical circulatory support is increasingly utilised in peri-procedural contexts. Herein we describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing high-risk (HR) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support. Design: Single centre, retrospective cohort study conducted at a quaternary Australian ECMO retrieval hospital. Methods: Consecutive patients between January 2019 and June 2024, who received peripheral VA-ECMO support for HR-PCI were identified from the institutional ECMO database. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) to hospital discharge. Secondary endpoints included procedural success, incidence of vascular access and bleeding complications, acute kidney injury (AKI), and duration of mechanical circulatory support (MCS), ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay. Results: Seventeen patients received VA-ECMO supported HR-PCI during the study period. The median age was 70 years (IQR; 59-78). Fourteen (82 %) patients were male; fifteen (88 %) had moderate to severe left ventricular dysfunction pre-procedurally. Ten (59 %) patients underwent emergency VA-ECMO support and seven (41 %) patients were supported prophylactically, with mean pre-procedural SYNTAX scores of 39 ± 12 and 30 ± 10, respectively. Seven MACCE events occurred, all being death in the emergency group. Fifteen patients (88 %) were successfully revascularised. Significantly more patients in the emergency versus the prophylactic group developed AKI (80 % vs 14 %, p = 0.02). There were significantly more vascular and access-related complications in the emergency group (7 vs 1, p = 0.049). Conclusion: In seventeen patients undergoing HR-PCI, prophylactic VA-ECMO support was feasible, safe and associated with good short-term outcomes, whilst emergency VA-ECMO supported HR-PCI was associated with greater burden of mortality and morbidity. Larger prospective studies, including cost analysis comparing other MCS devices are required.
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.