ArticleJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2026
Congenital diaphragmatic hernia: are improvements in ECMO & survival sustainable over time?
Article in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfants with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) remain at high risk for ECMO and mortality. We previously reported improved outcomes after implementing new CDH care guidelines. This study reassesses ECMO rates, survival, and guideline adherence to determine if improvements persisted.
methodsRetrospective review of all neonatal CDH cases at a single center during pre-guideline (2003-2015, n = 229) and post-guideline (2016-2024, n = 160) periods, with post-guideline subdivided into two epochs: post-1 (2016-2019, n = 70) and post-2 (2020-2024, n = 90).
resultsSurvival without ECMO improved (pre-53%; post-1 74%; post-2 82%; p < 0.001), as did overall survival (72% vs. 83% vs. 86%; p = 0.006). ECMO use decreased (31% vs. 14% vs. 6%; p < 0.001). Inhaled nitric oxide use remained low, and vasoactive medication use dropped significantly in post-2.
conclusionSustained survival improvement and reduced ECMO use followed guideline changes emphasizing minimal stimulation, gentle ventilation, delayed transfer, pre-ductal saturation monitoring, and limited vasoactive therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41826665What 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.