SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2026
The effects of mechanical ventilation during v-a ecmo support: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 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
backgroundMechanical ventilation is routinely used during veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-A ECMO), but its role in influencing hemodynamics and supporting cardiac recovery remains poorly understood. This systematic review aims to summarize and describe studies that investigated the effects of mechanical ventilation settings and adjunctive respiratory interventions on cardiac function, recovery, and clinical outcomes in V-A ECMO patients.
methodsA systematic search in literature up to June 6th 2025 was conducted to identify studies assessing the effects of ventilation strategies or hypoxemia-rescue therapies on physiological and clinical outcomes in adults supported by V-A ECMO or in animal V-A ECMO models. Because of anticipated heterogeneity across studies, we refrained from pooling of results.
resultsOut of 5,750 records screened, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria (10 clinical, 1 experimental, 1 computational). Four studies in humans observed that lower driving and peak inspiratory pressures, along with reduced respiratory rates, were associated with improved survival in V-A ECMO patients. One study found that moderate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) conveyed protective effects on the lungs without compromising cardiac function, whereas excessive PEEP impaired systolic function without causing systemic hypotension. A computational study suggested that higher intrathoracic pressures may have cardioprotective effects by unloading the left ventricle and reducing myocardial oxygen demand. Very limited studies have explored adjunctive ventilation strategies, including inhaled nitric oxide and defined oxygenation targets during V-A ECMO, exhibiting at least a moderate risk of bias.
conclusionsEvidence on the effects of mechanical ventilation during V-A ECMO on cardiac function, recovery and clinical outcomes is limited, heterogeneous, and at considerable risk of bias. Well-designed mechanistic and interventional studies are needed to determine whether ventilation strategies can support myocardial recovery and facilitate successful V-A ECMO weaning.
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.