Outcomes of transported and in-house patients on extracorporeal life support: a propensity score-matching study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patients on extracorporeal life support (ECLS), like other critically ill patients, are transported to other institutions for various reasons. However, little has been reported concerning the characteristics and clinical outcomes of transported patients compared with those of in-house patients. METHODS: A total of 281 adult patients received ECLS between January 2014 and August 2016. Patients who underwent cannulation at another institution by our team were excluded. Patients were divided into 2 groups: transported group (N = 46) and in-house group (N = 235). All 46 patients were safely transported without serious adverse events. The mean travel distance was 206±140 km, with a mean travel time of 78 ± 57 min. Following propensity score matching, 44 transported patients were matched to 148 in-house patients. RESULTS: In the matched population, the mean age was 48 ± 13 years in the transported group and 49 ± 17 years in the in-house group (P = 0.70). The ECLS type (venoarterial/venovenous) comprised 35/9 (79.5/20.5%) in the transported group and 119/29 (80.4/19.6%) in the in-house group (P = 0.93). Seventeen (38.6%) extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitations were performed in the transported group and 59 (39.9%) were performed in the in-house group (P = 0.91). The incidence of limb ischaemia and acute kidney injury was higher in the transported group (P = 0.007 and P = 0.001, respectively). However, the rate of survival to discharge did not differ between the groups (63.6% in the transported group vs 64.2% in the in-house group, P = 0.94) and there was no difference in overall mortality (P = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Although transported patients had more complications than in-house ECLS patients, clinical outcomes were comparable in the matched population. Transporting ECLS patients to an experienced centre may be justified based on our experience.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".