Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42872110›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026

ECMO in hinterland-feasibility and challenges (case-based narrative review).

Vamshi Krishna Jonnalagedda, Kollengode Ramanathan, Pranay L Oza, Arpan Chakraborty, Poonam Malhotra, Nagarajan Ganapathy, Rakesh Venuturumilli, Dipanjan Chatterjee, Ahsina Jahan, Rajesh C Mishra

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in 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.

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

10 authors.

Vamshi Krishna Jonnalagedda *Department of Critical Care, KIMS Hospitals Secunderabad, Hyderabad, India.
Kollengode Ramanathan *Department of Critical Care, KIMS Hospitals Secunderabad, Hyderabad, India.
Pranay L OzaDepartment of ECMO & Cardiology, RVMH, Mumbai, India.
Arpan ChakrabortyDepartment of Critical Care and ECMO Services, Apollo Multispeciality Hospital, Kolkata, India.
Poonam MalhotraDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, AIIMS, New Delhi, India.
Nagarajan GanapathyCritical Care Unit, Dhanvantri Institute of Medical Education and Research, Erode, India.
Rakesh VenuturumilliDepartment of Critical Care & ECMO, Fortis Gleneagles Hospitals, Hyderabad, India.
Dipanjan ChatterjeeDepartment of Critical Care and ECMO Services, Manipal Hospital EM Bypass, Kolkata, India.
Ahsina JahanDepartment of ICU and Emergency, ICU Specialized and General Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Rajesh C MishraDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sterling Hospitals Gurukul, Ahmedabad, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is one of the most advanced forms of cardiopulmonary support used for severe respiratory and/or cardiac failure when other conventional treatments are not optimal. However, the practice or use of ECMO remains predominant in tertiary centres due to its resource-intensive nature (human, skill, technical, and financial), thereby limiting access in peripheral and resource-constrained regions. So, this narrative review examines the feasibility and challenges of establishing ECMO services in such settings (described as the hinterland) through three major models: outreach ECMO programmes, hub-and-spoke systems, and tele-ECMO networks. Previous reviews have discussed ECMO organisation, transport, and regionalisation in general. Few have addressed the practical question of which ECMO model a hinterland hospital should choose and when. This review aims to fill that gap by directly comparing three practical models. Using case-based discussions and available literature, the review outlines the common foundational requirements for safe ECMO delivery, including infrastructure, logistics, multidisciplinary teamwork, transport preparedness, ethical governance, and protocol standardisation. It explores the advantages and disadvantages of each model, with a focus on components such as early referral, expert oversight, safe interfacility transfer, and a viable long-term partnership between peripheral and expert ECMO centres to improve patient outcomes. The review discusses ethical and financial aspects of ECMO program. It specifically explores the future role of telemedicine, artificial intelligence, and digital connectivity in expanding ECMO across all areas. To conclude, the review demonstrates that, with proposed models of structured systems and appropriate training, ECMO can be safely extended to unexplored regions while maintaining quality and patient safety.

Indexed as

ethicsextra corporeal membrane oxygenationhub and spoke modelout reach programperiphral centretele ECMOtransfer protocol

Identifiers

PMID42872110
PMCPMC13659891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.