A rational approach on the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in severe hypoxemia: advanced technology is not a panacea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a helpful intervention in patients with severe refractory hypoxemia either because mechanical ventilation cannot ensure adequate oxygenation or because lung protective ventilation is not feasible. Since ECMO is a highly invasive procedure with several, potentially devastating complications and its implementation is complex and expensive, simpler and less invasive therapeutic options should be first exploited. Low tidal volume and driving pressure ventilation, prone position, neuromuscular blocking agents and individualized ventilation based on transpulmonary pressure measurements have been demonstrated to successfully treat the vast majority of mechanically ventilated patients with severe hypoxemia. Veno-venous ECMO has a place in the small portion of severely hypoxemic patients in whom these strategies fail. A combined analysis of recent ARDS trials revealed that ECMO was used in only 2.15% of patients (n = 145/6736). Nevertheless, ECMO use has sharply increased in the last decade, raising questions regarding its thoughtful use. Such a policy could be harmful both for patients as well as for the ECMO technique itself. This narrative review attempts to describe together the practical approaches that can be offered to the sickest patients before going to ECMO, as well as the rationale and the limitations of ECMO. The benefit and the drawbacks associated with ECMO use along with a direct comparison with less invasive therapeutic strategies will be analyzed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".