ArticleCritical care (London, England)2026
Ventricular arrhythmia ablation timing and outcomes in electrical STORM requiring V-A ECMO support: the STORM-ECMO study.
Article 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.
- Ablation timing in ECMO-supported electrical storm: one strategy does not fit all substrates.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectrical storm (ES) with refractory cardiogenic shock carries high mortality. While veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO) may stabilize circulation, the role and timing of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) ablation under ECMO remain unclear.
objectivesTo assess the impact and optimal timing of VA ablation on ECMO weaning success in patients supported with V-A ECMO for ES-related refractory cardiogenic shock.
methodsWe conducted a French multicenter retrospective cohort study including 218 patients treated between 2015 and 2023 in 9 tertiary centers. Patients requiring V-A ECMO for ES-related cardiogenic shock were included; 115 underwent VA ablation, and 103 did not. The primary endpoint was successful ECMO weaning, defined as liberation from ECMO alive without transition to durable mechanical circulatory support or heart transplantation 28 days after ECMO liberation. Analyses combined propensity-score matching, time-dependent Cox models, spline-based analysis, and landmark Fine & Gray competing-risk analyses to account for immortal time and competing events.
resultsVA ablation was associated with higher ECMO weaning success (cs-HR 1.72, 95% CI 1.08–2.73; p = 0.022). Spline-based Cox analysis indicated that the benefit was greatest when ablation was performed within the first days of support, progressively attenuating thereafter. Among ablated patients, early intervention (≤ Day 4) conferred a clear advantage over later ablation (HR 2.10, 95% CI 1.14–3.87; p = 0.01). A landmark Fine & Gray model confirmed a higher cumulative incidence of successful weaning with early ablation versus late or no ablation (sHR 2.23, 95% CI 1.26–3.87; p = 0.0045).
conclusionIn patients with ES-related refractory cardiogenic shock supported by V-A ECMO, VA ablation was associated with a higher probability of successful ECMO weaning, particularly when performed within the early days after cannulation.
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.