Survival Benefit Associated With the Use of Extracorporeal Life Support for Neonates With Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the survival among comparable neonates with CDH supported with and without ECLS. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Despite widespread use in the management of newborns with CDH, ECLS has not been consistently associated with improved survival. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using ECLS-eligible CDH Study Group registry patients born between 2007 and 2019. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Neonates who did and did not receive ECLS were matched based on variables affecting risk for the primary outcome. Iterative propensity score-matched, survival (Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier), and center effects analyses were performed to examine the association of ECLS use and mortality. RESULTS: Of 5855 ECLS-eligible CDH patients, 1701 (29.1%) received ECLS. "High-risk" patients were best defined as those with a lowest achievable first-day arterial partial pressure of CO2 of ≥60 mm Hg. After propensity score matching, mortality was higher with ECLS (47.8% vs 21.8%, odds ratio 3.3, 95% confidence interval 2.7-4.0, hazard ratio 2.3, P < 0.0001). For the subgroup of high-risk patients, there was lower mortality observed with ECLS (64.2% vs 84.4%, odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.17-0.65, hazard ratio 0.33, P = 0.001). This survival advantage was persistent using multiple matching approaches. However, this ECLS survival advantage was found to occur primarily at high CDH volume centers that offer frequent ECLS for the high-risk subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Use of ECLS is associated with excess mortality for low- and intermediate-risk neonates with CDH. It is associated with a significant survival advantage among high-risk infants, and this advantage is strongly influenced by center CDH volume and ECLS 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".