Incidence of Venous Thromboembolism in Adults Receiving Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has become an increasingly used tool for cardiorespiratory support. Thrombosis is a well-recognized complication of ECMO, yet the burden of disease remains unclear. We undertook a systematic review to investigate the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) during ECMO or soon after decannulation, in patients screened for VTE. We retrieved all studies that evaluated VTE incidence in ECMO patients in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to April 2, 2021. Studies reporting incidence of VTE diagnosed on systematic screening tests during ECMO or within 7 days of decannulation in adult patients were included. A total of 18 studies were included in the systematic review. These studies screened a total of 1095 ECMO patients. Most studies screened for cannula-associated deep vein thrombosis (CaDVT) after decannulation. The overall incidence of DVT was 52.8% (95% CI, 49.8-55.8%). Incidence of DVT was 53.5% (95% CI, 50.0-57.0%) for venovenous ECMO vs. 34.0% (95% CI, 26.5-42.2%) for venoarterial ECMO. No studies screened for pulmonary embolism. Our systematic review found a very high incidence of DVT among patients treated with ECMO. Routine screening for DVT after decannulation for all ECMO patients may be warranted.
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 | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".