ReviewHealth science reports2026
Percutaneous Versus Surgical Cannulation for Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Life Support: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a critical intervention in the management of severe cardiac and respiratory failure. Among the commonly used cannulation techniques, percutaneous cannulation (PC) and surgical cannulation (SC) are most prevalent; however, their comparative safety and effectiveness remain under debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes associated with PC and SC in patients undergoing veno-arterial ECLS. Method: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies. Six studies with a total of 13,744 patients (9962 PC and 3782 SC) met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and analysis were performed using RevMan software, applying a random-effects model. Meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were also performed to evaluate heterogeneity. Dichotomous outcomes were assessed using relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Statistical significance was set at Results: PC was associated with a significantly lower risk of cannulation site infections (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.41-0.78, Conclusion: Compared with SC, PC appears to reduce the risk of infections and vascular complications in veno-arterial ECLS patients. However, further high-quality studies are required to establish its benefits across other clinical outcomes.
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.