Pediatric Outcomes After Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Cardiac Disease and for Cardiac Arrest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reviewed reported survival and neurological outcomes, and predictors of these outcomes for pediatric cardiac extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). We searched PubMed from 2000 to April 2011. Cumulative survival after cardiac ECMO in children was 788/1755 (45%); renal dysfunction, dialysis, neurologic complication, lactate, and ECMO duration consistently predicted this outcome, whereas single ventricle and ECPR did not. Neurological outcomes after cardiac ECMO were based on poorly described telephone questions in two studies for 47 patients with 51% significantly impaired and detailed follow-up testing for 42 patients in three studies with mental delay in 38% and mental score >85 (average or above) in 33%. Cumulative survival after ECPR in children was 371/762 (49%); noncardiac disease, renal dysfunction, neurologic complication, and pH on extracorporeal life support consistently predicted this outcome, whereas duration of CPR did not. Neurological outcomes after ECPR were based predominantly on the pediatric cerebral performance category (PCPC) score by chart review, with 161/181 (79%) having PCPC <2. No study reported detailed follow-up testing for survivors of ECPR. Survival outcomes of most cardiac subgroups were similar, except for concerning mortality in cavopulmonary connection patients. Priority areas for study include identification of potentially modifiable predictors of long-term outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".