Observational studyCritical care (London, England)2026
Major haemorrhage and blood product utilisation in patients receiving VA ECMO for cardiogenic shock: a multicentre observational study (OBLEX).
Observational study in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient blood management in general intensive care patients.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
32 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHaemorrhage and blood product usage are common in venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) and associated with increased mortality.
methodsA prospective, investigator-initiated, longitudinal observational cohort study on major haemorrhagic events in 12 ECMO centres from 3 continents for three predefined subgroups (VA ECMO initiated during cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), after cardiothoracic surgery (CTS), for cardiogenic shock (CS)). The aim was to describe haemorrhagic complications as well as transfusion practice and anticoagulation for the whole population as well as the subgroups. In addition, independent baseline predictors for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions were evaluated.
results545 prospective patients were included between 2019 and 2022 (ECPR 149, CTS 169, CS 227). Hospital mortality was 46%. Over 2796 days 406 major haemorrhage events in 286 (52%) patients were recorded. CTS and ECPR patients had more frequent events occurring earlier in their course. 88% received RBC transfusions (1.27 (95%CI 1.22 – 1.31) units/day) with significantly more transfusions for CTS and ECPR patients. Platelet transfusion rates were highest in the CTS group (0.58 (95%CI 0.53–0.64) units/day). Haemoglobin and platelet count prior to transfusion were independent of subgroups and averaged (78 g/L (IQR 73, 84), 58 × 10^9/L (IQR 37, 85), respectively). However, platelet count prior transfusion was only marginally higher on days with major haemorrhage (74 × 10^9/L (IQR 50, 104). Systemic anticoagulation was started within the first 24 h in 83% (95% CI 80–87%) of patients, most frequently in CS patients (90%, CI 85–95%). Independent baseline predictors for RBC transfusion were ECPR (IRR 1.50, 95%CI 1.19–1.89) and prior use of antiplatelets (IRR: 1.43, 95%CI 1.13–1.80). Myocarditis and pulmonary embolism were associated with a lower rate of transfusion when compared to myocardial infarct (IRR: 0.57 (0.37–0.89), IRR: 0.67 (0.45–1.00, respectively).
conclusionHaemorrhagic complications differ in clinical subgroups and RBC transfusion exposure is by far higher than in other critically unwell populations. We identified ECPR and antiplatelet therapy as additional predictors. Transfusion practice for RBC and platelets is variable and does not always follow international guidelines.
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.