Liberation From Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may be used for circulatory support in cardiogenic shock as a bridge to recovery, a bridge to a ventricular assist device (VAD), or a bridge to transplant. While the determination of potential exit strategies is essential before cannulation, the final determination of a patient's options may change, in part, through their in-hospital clinical course. We propose that liberation from venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation should be conceptualized as a process of discovery in the assessment of a patient's underlying clinical status and a key driver of further clinical decision-making. A trial of liberation from support should be considered when the goals of the weaning trial are well-defined and, ideally, in the absence of potentially confounding clinical factors. In this review, we will discuss readiness to wean criteria from venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, as well as specific clinical, biochemical, and echocardiographic parameters that may prove useful in determining weaning timing and revealing the patient's underlying hemodynamic status and prognosis. The role of various cannula configurations, support devices, and pharmacological adjuncts will also be discussed. Finally, we highlight current gaps in evidence and suggest areas of future research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".