ArticleArtificial organs2026
Comparison of Left Ventricular Pressure-Volume Loops With Veno-Arterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenator Support: In Vitro Investigation.
Article in Artificial organs, 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
Abstract
backgroundThe hemodynamic consequence of increasing veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (V-A ECMO) flow on left ventricular (LV) loading is controversial, with in vivo studies reporting conflicting results on left ventricular distension. We investigated increased V-A ECMO flow on LV pressure-volume characteristics under varying cardiac and volume conditions using a repeatable in vitro mock circulation loop (MCL).
methodsA MCL was configured with V-A ECMO system to simulate four cardiogenic shock patients due to decompensated chronic heart failure patient: (1) LV failure with healthy right ventricle (RV) at normal volume (mean circulatory filling pressure, MCFP: 7 mmHg), (2) combined LV and RV failure at normal volume, (3) LV failure with healthy RV and volume overload (MCFP: 12 mmHg), and (4) combined LV and RV failure with volume overload. For each condition, ECMO flow was increased from 2 L/min to 4 L/min, and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) was adjusted to evaluate effects on LV pressure-volume loops.
resultsIn LV failure with preserved RV function with normal volume, increased ECMO flow at constant SVR led to LV distension (> 30 mL increase in end-diastolic volume). Reducing SVR mitigated this effect but resulted in hypotension (MAP < 65 mmHg). In combined LV and RV failure at normal volume, LV distension was less pronounced and manageable with SVR reduction while maintaining adequate MAP. Under volume overload, ECMO flow increases caused marked LV dilation and elevated central venous pressure, risking venous congestion.
conclusionsWe demonstrated that LV distension during V-A ECMO flow is influenced by ventricular function, volume status, and SVR. Judicious volume management and afterload control are essential, and patients with preserved RV function may require adjunct LV unloading strategies.
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.