ArticleThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2026
Scoping review of contemporary adult venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) selection criteria and decision-making mechanisms.
Article in The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adult venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) is a costly life support therapy, where patient selection remains a significant hinge-point in determining patient outcomes. Despite this, few sites have formalized patient selection criteria, and even fewer have a robust multidisciplinary ECMO team to determine patient candidacy. Analyzing current literature revealed weaknesses in existing research on VA ECMO patient selection criteria. Significant issues include the use of small sample sizes, lack of randomized controlled trials, lack of personalization of ECMO initiation decisions, study heterogeneity, and inclusion of patients who received ECMO without including patients who were considered for but not given ECMO. Among the available studies, the Survival After Venoarterial ECMO (SAVE) score has shown the greatest promise in selecting VA ECMO patients, excluding those undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) and postcardiotomy (PC) ECMO. The SAVE score has demonstrated good discrimination in non-ECPR and non-PC ECMO groups. Further research is needed on the predictive value of SAVE score risk classes and the discrimination of the SAVE score excluding PC ECMO and ECPR groups. The modified SAVE score, which also includes lactate assessment, has shown the greatest promise for selecting ECPR and PC ECMO patients for VA ECMO. The modified SAVE score requires more external validation. Site-level research indicates that consultation with a multidisciplinary ECMO team, which collectively makes decisions about ECMO candidacy, has resulted in significantly improved patient survival outcomes compared with a one- or two-physician decision-making mechanism for VA ECMO initiation. The ECMO team approach is a rich area for future research, and sites should publish their patient outcomes before and after implementation.
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.