MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019374630 · doi:10.1097/ta.0000000000002756

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use in Trauma Quality Improvement Program centers: Temporal trends and future directions

2020· article· en· W3019374630 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew P. Guttman, Bourke W. Tillmann, Dylan Pannell, Mark Vallelonga, Avery B. Nathens, Barbara Haas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationMedicineMechanical ventilationTrauma centerIncidence (geometry)Major traumaInjury Severity ScoreMortality rateEmergency medicineVentilation (architecture)Retrospective cohort studyAnesthesiaSurgeryPoison controlInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Increased clinical experience and the decreased need for systemic anticoagulation have renewed interest in the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for posttraumatic respiratory and cardiopulmonary failure. The objectives of this study were to describe the incidence and temporal trends of ECMO use at trauma centers, the outcomes of trauma patients undergoing ECMO, and the characteristics of trauma centers providing ECMO. METHODS: Data were derived from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program data set. We included adults with at least one severe injury admitted to a level I or II trauma center between 2012 and 2016 who received at least 1 day of mechanical ventilation. Patients were categorized based on whether or not they received ECMO during their admission. The primary outcome was change in the incidence of ECMO across study years. We also evaluated patient outcomes and variation in ECMO volumes across centers. RESULTS: Of 194,314 severely injured patients undergoing mechanical ventilation across 450 centers, 269 (0.14%) received ECMO. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients had significantly higher mortality than non-ECMO patients (32% vs. 19%). The standardized rate of ECMO from 2012 to 2016 increased significantly from 75.2 to 179.0 cases per 100,000 severely injured patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. The average annual growth rate was 24%. Of the 82 centers(18%) reporting at least 1 ECMO trauma case, 34 (41%) reported only a single case. CONCLUSION: The use of ECMO for trauma, although rare, is rapidly increasing. Two thirds of patients who receive ECMO following traumatic injury survive their hospitalization. These data suggest that ECMO represents a potential treatment strategy for trauma patients with respiratory or cardiopulmonary failure. However, given the rarity of the procedure, there exists an opportunity to develop practice guidelines regarding the indications for, and approach to, ECMO in the setting of trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical CareSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207