Intra-aortic balloon pump protects against hydrostatic pulmonary oedema during peripheral venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Increased left ventricular afterload during peripheral venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support frequently causes hydrostatic pulmonary oedema. Because physiological studies demonstrated left ventricular afterload decrease during VA-ECMO assistance combined with the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP), we progressively changed our standard practice systematically to associate an IABP with VA-ECMO. This study aimed to evaluate IABP efficacy in preventing pulmonary oedema in VA-ECMO-assisted patients. Methods: A retrospective single-centre study. Results: Among 259 VA-ECMO patients included, 104 received IABP. Weinberg radiological score-assessed pulmonary oedema was significantly lower in IABP+ than IABP– patients at all times after ECMO implantation. This protection against pulmonary oedema persisted when death and switching to central ECMO were used as competing risks (subhazard ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33–0.75; P<0.001). Multivariable analysis retained IABP as being independently associated with a lower risk of radiological pulmonary oedema (odds ratio (OR) 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.7; P=0.001) and a trend towards lower mortality (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29–1.01; P=0.06). Finally, the time on ECMO free from mechanical ventilation increased in IABP+ patients (2.2±4.3 vs. 0.7±2.0 days; P=0.0003). Less frequent pulmonary oedema and more days off mechanical ventilation were also confirmed in 126 highly comparable IABP+ and IABP– patients, propensity score matched for receiving an IABP. Conclusions: Associating an IABP with peripheral VA-ECMO was independently associated with a lower frequency of hydrostatic pulmonary oedema and more days off mechanical ventilation under ECMO.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".