Right Ventricular Injury Increases Mortality in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome on Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Right ventricular injury (RVI) in the context of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is well recognized as an important determinant risk factor of mortality. Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is part of the algorithm for the management of patients with severe ARDS and severely impaired gas exchange. Although VV-ECMO may theoretically protect the RV it is uncertain to what degree RVI persists despite VV-ECMO support, and whether it continues to influence mortality after ECMO initiation. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the impact of RVI on mortality in this context, testing the hypothesis that RVI worsens mortality in this cohort. We performed a systematic search that identified seven studies commenting on RVI and mortality in patients with ARDS receiving VV-ECMO. The presence of RVI was associated with greater mortality overall (odds ratios [OR]: 2.72; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.52-4.85; p < 0.00) and across three subgroups (RV dilatational measures: OR: 3.51; 95% CI: 1.51-8.14; p < 0.01, RV functional measures: OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 0.99-3.42; p = 0.05, RV measurements post-ECMO initiation: OR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.01-3.72; p < 0.05). Prospective studies are needed to investigate the causal relationship between RVI and mortality in this patient group and the best management strategies to reduce mortality.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".