ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Compassionate Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Discontinuation: A Narrative Review and Practical Process Model for Reliable End-of-Life Care.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides temporary respiratory or circulatory support when conventional therapies fail. Some patients do not recover and are not candidates for transplant or durable mechanical support. In these cases, continuing ECMO may no longer align with the patient's goals. Compassionate ECMO discontinuation (CED) is the planned withdrawal of extracorporeal support with death anticipated. The term "compassionate" refers to the goal of minimizing suffering in the end-of-life process. This review proposes a reliability-oriented framework to standardize CED and reduce preventable distress for patients, families, and clinicians. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a targeted narrative review of ethical analyses, consensus guidance, and empirical literature on planned ECMO withdrawal. The results of the narrative review were combined with our existing practical process for CED into this proposed reliability-oriented framework as a guide for clinicians. Recommendations were organized into a four-phase process model that emphasizes operational implementation, anticipatory guidance, and quality improvement. We included modality-specific considerations for veno-arterial (VA), veno-venous (VV) ECMO, and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR).
resultsThe framework includes four phases. Phase I, Anticipation and Alignment, emphasizes structured shared decision-making, early expectation setting, time-limited trials, palliative care integration, and predefined pathways for managing disagreement. Phase II, Preparation, includes interdisciplinary role assignment, a pre-withdrawal time out, family coaching on expected physiological changes, and preemptive comfort medications that account for ECMO-altered pharmacokinetics. Phase III, Implementation, prioritizes comfort first, pacing with explicit pause points, environmental controls to reduce alarms and visual distress, and modality-tailored sequencing. Phase VI, Aftercare and Learning Capture, includes bereavement support, standardized documentation, structured team debriefing, and recommended process measures to guide improvement.
conclusionsViewing CED as a low-frequency, high-stakes clinical process supported by scripts, checklists, and iterative feedback can improve goal-concordant end-of-life (EOL) care, reduce suffering and family trauma, support clinicians, and strengthen ECMO program learning systems.
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.