MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anticoagulation Practices during Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Respiratory Failure. A Systematic Review

2016· review· en· W2528685898 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the American Thoracic Society · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalRegina General HospitalStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of SaskatchewanToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationIntensive care medicineAcute respiratory failureOxygenationRespiratory failureRescue therapyExtracorporealAnesthesiaInternal medicineMechanical ventilation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The optimal anticoagulation strategy for venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is not known. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety of anticoagulation strategies and monitoring during VV-ECMO for respiratory failure. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the association between anticoagulation strategies during VV-ECMO and prespecified outcomes, including major bleeding episodes, thrombotic events, and in-hospital mortality. We included articles published between 1977 and January 30, 2015. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system. A separate meta-analysis was not planned. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were independently extracted by two authors and collected on a standardized report form. SYNTHESIS: A total of 18 studies (n = 646) were included; 17 studies enrolled patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Across all studies, the duration of VV-ECMO support ranged from 4 to 20 days. Patients received an average of 2.3 (±3.9) units of transfused red blood cells per day. The bleeding rate across all studies was 16%, and the rate of thrombosis was 53%. Among seven studies (199 patients) targeting a specified activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), there were 37 (19%) major bleeding episodes and 53 (27%) major thromboses. Among five studies (43 patients) with aPTT targets of 60 seconds or greater, there were 24 (56%) bleeding episodes and 3 (7%) clotting events. Three studies (156 patients) with an aPTT target under 60 seconds reported 13 (8%) and 50 (32%) significant bleeding and thrombotic events, respectively. The most commonly reported thrombotic events were circuit-related clotting and deep-vein thrombosis. Mortality during VV-ECMO varied across the studies, ranging from 0 to at least 50% at heterogeneous time points. The total number of deaths for all studies combined was 186 (29%). CONCLUSIONS: The role and optimal therapeutic targets for anticoagulation during VV-ECMO are unclear. Previously published studies are limited by retrospective, observational design, small cohorts, and patient heterogeneity. The clinical significance of reported thrombotic complications is largely unknown. This systematic review underscores the need for randomized controlled trials of anticoagulation strategies for patients undergoing VV-ECMO for respiratory failure.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it