Trends in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for the Treatment of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to describe patient characteristics and trends in the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the United States from 2006 to 2011. METHODS: We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to isolate all patients aged 18 years who had a discharge International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis of ARDS, with and without procedure codes for ECMO, between 2006 and 2011. RESULTS: We examined a total of 47 911 414 hospital discharges, representing 235 911 271 hospitalizations using national weights. Of the 1 479 022 patients meeting the definition of ARDS (representing 7 281 206 discharges), 775 underwent ECMO. There was a 409% relative increase in the use of ECMO for ARDS in the United States between 2006 and 2011, from 0.0178% to 0.090% ( P = .0041). Patients treated with ECMO had higher in-hospital mortality (58.6% vs 25.1%, P < .0001) and longer hospital stays (15.8 days vs 6.9 days, P < .0001). They were also younger (47.9 vs 66.4 years, P < .0001) and more likely to be male (62.2% vs 49.6%, P < .0001). The median time to initiate ECMO from the time of admission was 0.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 4.9 days). CONCLUSION: There has been a dramatic increase in ECMO use for the treatment of ARDS in the United States.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".