ReviewCureus2026
Peripheral Versus Central Cannulation for Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (VA-ECMO): A Meta-Analysis of Bleeding and Vascular Complications.
Review in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is increasingly utilized in refractory cardiogenic shock, though the optimal cannulation strategy remains debated, due to divergent vascular and bleeding complications. Peripheral (femoral) access offers ease of deployment but may increase limb ischemia risk, while central (aortic/right atrial) cannulation improves antegrade flow, but carries a higher surgical bleeding burden. We performed a meta-analysis to compare outcomes between peripheral and central cannulation, focusing on major complications, including bleeding, limb ischemia, infection, renal replacement therapy (RRT), and cerebrovascular accidents (CVAs). We systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through February 2025, excluding overlapping registry-based analyses. The DerSimonian-Laird effects model was applied to compute pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Publication bias was assessed using a visual funnel plot and the Egger's and Begg's tests. A leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings. All analyses were conducted in R statistical software (v4.3.2, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria), using the meta, metafor, and dmetar packages. Fifteen studies were included (N = 2,913). Patients receiving peripheral ECMO were slightly younger (54.8 ± 14.3 vs. 57.0 ± 13.7 years) and more often male (72% vs. 64%). Peripheral cannulation was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% CI 0.43-0.70), but a higher risk of limb ischemia (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17-1.75). No significant differences were observed for infection (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.39-2.01), RRT (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.66-2.08), or CVA (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.78-1.83). Sensitivity analyses, using a leave-one-out approach, confirmed the robustness of the findings, yielding nearly identical pooled estimates and indicating that no single study disproportionately influenced the results. Peripheral venoarterial ECMO (VA-ECMO) cannulation is associated with a significantly lower risk of bleeding, but a higher risk of limb ischemia, compared with central access, with no significant differences observed in infection, RRT, or CVAs. Therefore, the choice between peripheral and central access should be individualized, based on patient-specific risk profiles, particularly balancing bleeding risk against ischemic risk.
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.