ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Impact of cannula configuration on efficiency and mechanical ventilation intensity during venovenous ECMO.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe efficiency of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) may be influenced by cannula configuration, potentially affecting oxygenation and the ability to apply ultra-protective ventilation in severe ARDS. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included all adult patients with severe ARDS supported with femoro-jugular VV ECMO between January 2013 and December 2022. Patients were divided into two groups according to cannula configuration: cross configuration (CC) and non-cross configuration (NCC). Ventilatory parameters, mechanical power, blood gases, and ECMO settings were analyzed at 1, 4, 12, and 24 h after ECMO initiation. A longitudinal analysis using generalized estimating equations adjusted for APACHE II score, COVID-19 ARDS, and baseline mechanical power was performed.
resultsSixty-two patients were included (CC, n = 33; NCC, n = 29). Patients had a median age of 56 [50-63] years, 66% were male, and 58% had COVID-19 ARDS. Baseline respiratory parameters, ECMO settings, and cardiac output were comparable between groups. Compared with NCC, the CC group had significantly lower FiO₂ (21 [21-27] vs. 60 [40-100]%, p < 0.0001), and mechanical power (6.5 ± 2.4 vs. 12.3 ± 6.2 J/min, p < 0.0001) at 1 h, with sustained differences up to 24 h. In adjusted longitudinal analysis, the adjusted difference in mechanical power between CC and NCC was6.80 J/min (95% CI 3.82-9.78, p < 0.001) at 1 h and 6.69 J/min (95% CI 3.62-9.77, p < 0.001) at 24 h, with no significant interaction over time (p = 0.681). Sensitivity analyses including additional adjustment for prone positioning, baseline compliance, and time from intubation to ECMO initiation showed consistent results.
conclusionCross cannula configuration is associated with reduced mechanical ventilation intensity during VV ECMO, independent of disease severity and ARDS etiology. These findings suggest improved ECMO efficiency and support further evaluation in prospective studies.
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.