Comparing Percutaneous to Open Access for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Pediatric Respiratory Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate trends in method of access (percutaneous cannulation vs open cannulation) for pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and determine the effects of cannulation method on morbidity and mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization's registry was queried for pediatric patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory failure from 2007 to 2015. INVERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 3,501 patients identified, 77.2% underwent open cannulation, with the frequency of open cannulation decreasing over the study period from approximately 80% to 70% (p < 0.001). Percutaneous cannulation patients were more commonly male (24.2% vs 21.5%; p = 0.01), older (average 7.6 vs 4.5 yr; p < 0.001), and heavier (average 33.0 vs 20.2 kg; p < 0.001). Subset analysis of patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation revealed higher rates of mechanical complications due to blood clots (28.9% vs 22.6%; p = 0.003) or cannula problems (18.9% vs 12.7%; p < 0.001), cannula site bleeding (25.3% vs 20.2%; p = 0.01) and increased rates of cannula site repair in the open cannulation cohort. Limb related complications were not significantly different on subset analysis for venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients stratified by access site. Logistic regression analysis revealed that method of access was not associated with a difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of pediatric patients undergoing percutaneous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation cannulation is increasing. Mechanical and physiologic complications occur with both methods of cannulation, but percutaneous cannulation appears safe in this cohort. Further analysis is needed to evaluate long-term outcomes with this technique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".