Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42319103›Full record

ArticleThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2026

Scoping review of contemporary adult venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) selection criteria and decision-making mechanisms.

Amrita K Johal

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Amrita K JohalKelowna General Hospital, Kelowna, Canada.ORCID 0009-0009-7502-0675

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Decision-MakingExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationPatient SelectionAdultHumansECMO patient selectionECMO teamELSOModified SAVE scoreSAVE scoreVenoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Identifiers

PMID42319103
PMCPMC13281281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.