ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Anticoagulant effects of nafamostat administered via central venous catheter versus the ECMO circuit in adults receiving ECMO support.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate the impact of administering nafamostat through central venous catheter versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) circuit on anticoagulation efficacy during ECMO support. Materials and methods: This retrospective study included patients who received nafamostat for anticoagulation during ECMO support. Collected clinical data included age, sex, body weight, indication for ECMO, medical history, vital signs, laboratory test results, complications, and clinical outcomes. Patients were categorized into a central venous administration group and an ECMO-circuit administration group according to the site of nafamostat administration. Clinical parameters and outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: A total of 102 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 51 ± 9 years, with 61 (59.8%) males and 41 (40.2%) females. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in age, body weight, sex distribution, ECMO indications, medical history, vital signs, laboratory findings, or acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) scores ( Conclusions: Compared with central venous infusion, administration of nafamostat via the ECMO circuit was associated with a lower incidence of membrane oxygenator thrombosis, more rapid achievement of the anticoagulation target, and a lower daily dosage requirement. These findings are hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in prospective studies before informing clinical decisions regarding the route of nafamostat administration.
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.