SynthesisEuropean heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care2025
Resource utilization associated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation vs. microaxial flow pump for infarct-related cardiogenic shock.
Synthesis in European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsMicroaxial flow pump and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) are increasingly used in infarct-related cardiogenic shock. This study provides a comparative overview of real-world resource utilization associated with these devices (PROSPERO: CRD42024505174). METHODS AND
resultsEMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were sought from inception to 13 November 2024 for studies reporting at least one primary outcome, including intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, in-hospital costs, and discharge destination. In-hospital mortality was included as secondary outcome. This study was guided by the PRISMA-2020 guideline. Study selection and data extraction were independently performed by two researchers. Risk-of-bias assessments were done using the Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale. Data were pooled using random-effect models. In total, 12 retrospective cohorts were identified encompassing 92 262 microaxial flow pump- and 16 474 VA-ECMO patients data. The meta-analysis of hospital LOS and in-hospital costs revealed favourable results for the microaxial flow pump, with mean differences (MD) of -5.3 days (95% CI: -6.6, -4.1) and -$113 983 (95% CI: -$143 153, -$84 812), respectively. Microaxial flow pump survivors were also 45% more likely to be discharged home (95% CI: 1.28-1.64). Intensive care unit-length of stay was reported by one study, reporting a 10 days MD in favour of the microaxial flow pump. The averaged in-hospital mortality rates were 44% and 57% for the microaxial flow pump and VA-ECMO, respectively. An inherent limitation of observational studies is confounding by indication.
conclusionMicroaxial flow pump was associated with lower resource utilization compared with VA-ECMO. Resource utilization should be incorporated in prospective RCTs and taken into account when considering these devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.