Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Candidacy Decision-Making: Lessons and Hypotheses From a Single-Center Observational Analysis
Authors' conclusion
ECMO candidacy decisions are inconsistent.
Study context
- Population
- All patients, admitted or outside hospital referrals, considered for venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) at a tertiary referral center
- Participants
- 81 consultations
- Exposure
- Candidates vs noncandidates for venovenous ECMO
- Noncandidatesn = 44
- Candidatesn = 29
- Deferred decisionsn = 8
- Outcome
- Reasons behind venovenous ECMO candidacy decisions and consistency of decisions across patients
Methodological detailssingle-centre, tertiary referral center, qualitative assessment
- Single-centre
- Tertiary referral center
- Qualitative assessment
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Candidacy decisions and contraindications
- Unique contraindications identified
- 15
- Contraindications invoked as sole reason to deny ECMO
- 5
- Contraindications used to deny ECMO that were not nonprohibitive for at least one other candidate
- 4
- Other noncandidates with contraindications present but not mentioned
- 21 (47%)
- Candidates with ≥1 contraindication prohibitive in a noncandidate
- 26 (90%)
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Original publication
Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Candidacy Decision-Making: Lessons and Hypotheses From a Single-Center Observational Analysis. Chest. Published 27 February 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →