Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Full-Scale high-fidelity simulation compared to procedural simulation workshop for veno-arterial ECMO cannulation during refractory cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVeno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is a critical intervention for patients in refractory cardiac arrest. Rapid and high-quality cannulation is essential for timely ECMO initiation and improved patient outcomes. Therefore, optimizing educational strategies for VA-ECMO training is crucial to ensure skill acquisition and effectiveness in clinical practice. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of full-scale high-fidelity simulation versus a procedural simulation workshop for VA-ECMO cannulation training in anesthesiology and critical care residents.
methodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized, two-arm, single-center, open-label trial at the Nantes university hospital simulation center. Thirty anesthesiology and critical care residents were randomly assigned to either a high-fidelity simulation group or a procedural simulation workshop group. Prior to the intervention, all participants completed an e-learning module on VA-ECMO cannulation. The procedural simulation workshop group underwent a 3-hour session focusing on technical skills, with guided hands-on practice. The high-fidelity simulation group participated in a full-day session incorporating immersive high-fidelity scenarios of refractory cardiac arrest, hands-on VA-ECMO cannulation, training on ECMO console management, and transesophageal echocardiography simulation. The primary outcome was total cannulation time (seconds) on a mannequin in a simulated refractory cardiac arrest scenario, measured from sterile preparation to circuit connection. Secondary outcomes included a procedural quality score, developed using a Delphi consensus method and assessed by blinded evaluators, as well as skill-specific sub-item analyses.
resultsMedian cannulation times were similar between the procedural simulation workshop group (908 s; IQR 817-1015) and the high-fidelity simulation group (836 s; IQR 801-1029; p=0.71). Overall procedural quality scores did not significantly differ between groups. However, exploratory sub-item analyses suggested that specific procedural skills might be differentially influenced by each training modality.
conclusionsHigh-fidelity simulation and procedural workshops yielded similar performance for VA-ECMO cannulation. Although each may enhance specific skills, neither proved superior. Further research should determine the optimal integration of these training modalities.
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.