MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3053240236 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30733-9

Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation to rescue sepsis-induced cardiogenic shock: a retrospective, multicentre, international cohort study

2020· article· en· W3053240236 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Bréchot, David Hajage, Antoine Kimmoun, Julien Demiselle, Cara Agerstrand, Santiago Montero, Matthieu Schmidt, Charles‐Édouard Luyt, Guillaume Lebreton, Guillaume Hékimian, Erwan Flécher, Élie Zogheib, Bruno Lévy, Arthur S. Slutsky, Daniel Brodie, Pierre Asfar, Alain Combes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMedicineCardiogenic shockExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationEjection fractionInotropeCardiac indexSeptic shockRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineCardiologyShock (circulatory)Clinical endpointSepsisHemodynamicsAnesthesiaHeart failureCardiac outputMyocardial infarctionClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Patients with sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy with cardiogenic shock have a high mortality. This study assessed venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support for sepsis-induced cardiogenic shock refractory to conventional treatments. Methods In this retrospective, multicentre, international cohort study, we compared outcomes of 82 patients (aged ≥18 years) with septic shock who received VA-ECMO at five academic ECMO centres, with 130 controls (not receiving ECMO) obtained from three large databases of septic shock. All patients had severe myocardial dysfunction (cardiac index 3 L/min per m 2 or less or left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 35% or less) and severe haemodynamic compromise (inotrope score at least 75 μg/kg per min or lactic acidaemia at least 4 mmol/L) at time of inclusion. The primary endpoint was survival at 90 days. A propensity score-weighted analysis was done to control for confounders. Findings At baseline, patients treated with VA-ECMO had more severe myocardial dysfunction (mean cardiac index 1·5 L/min per m 2 vs 2·2 L/min per m 2 , LVEF 17% vs 27%), more severe haemodynamic impairment (inotrope score 279 μg/kg per min vs 145 μg/kg per min, lactataemia 8·9 mmol/L vs 6·5 mmol/L), and more severe organ failure (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score 17 vs 13) than did controls, with p<0·0001 for each comparison. Survival at 90 days for patients treated with VA-ECMO was significantly higher than for controls (60% vs 25%, risk ratio [RR] for mortality 0·54, 95% CI [0·40–0·70]; p<0·0001). After propensity score weighting, ECMO remained associated with improved survival (51% vs 14%, adjusted RR for mortality 0·57, 95% CI [0·35–0·93]; p=0·0029). Lactate and catecholamine clearance were also significantly enhanced in patients treated with ECMO. Among the 49 survivors treated with ECMO, 32 who had been treated at the largest centre reported satisfactory Short Form-36 evaluated health-related quality of life at 1-year follow-up. Interpretation Patients with severe sepsis-induced cardiogenic shock treated with VA-ECMO had a large and significant improvement in survival compared with controls not receiving ECMO. However, despite the careful propensity-weighted analysis, we cannot rule out unmeasured confounders. Funding None.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.257
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations221
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207