MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360993466 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000000887

Neurologic Complications of Patients With COVID-19 Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2023· review· en· W4360993466 on OpenAlexafffund
Cathy Meng Fei Li, Xiaoxiao Deng, Fei Yu, Emily Dawson, Carol Li, Dong Yao Wang, Lynn Huong, Teneille Gofton, A. Dave Nagpal, Marat Slessarev

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAcademic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationMeta-analysisStroke (engine)Cochrane LibraryData extractionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Intraventricular hemorrhageMEDLINEInternal medicineAnesthesiaDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: In COVID-19 patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), our primary objective was to determine the frequency of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Secondary objectives were to estimate the frequency of ischemic stroke, to explore association between higher anticoagulation targets and ICH, and to estimate the association between neurologic complications and in-hospital mortality. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and MedRxiv databases from inception to March 15, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: We identified studies that described acute neurological complications in adult patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection requiring ECMO. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Studies with 95% or more of its patients on venovenous or venoarterial ECMO were pooled for meta-analysis, which was calculated using a random-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-four studies ( n = 3,347) were included in the systematic review. Venovenous ECMO was used in 97% of patients. Meta-analysis of ICH and ischemic stroke on venovenous ECMO included 18 and 11 studies, respectively. The frequency of ICH was 11% (95% CI, 8–15%), with intraparenchymal hemorrhage being the most common subtype (73%), while the frequency of ischemic strokes was 2% (95% CI, 1–3%). Higher anticoagulation targets were not associated with increased frequency of ICH ( p = 0.06). In-hospital mortality was 37% (95% CI, 34–40%) and neurologic causes ranked as the third most common cause of death. The risk ratio of mortality in COVID-19 patients with neurologic complications on venovenous ECMO compared with patients without neurologic complications was 2.24 (95% CI, 1.46–3.46). There were insufficient studies for meta-analysis of COVID-19 patients on venoarterial ECMO. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients requiring venovenous ECMO have a high frequency of ICH, and the development of neurologic complications more than doubled the risk of death. Healthcare providers should be aware of these increased risks and maintain a high index of suspicion for ICH.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.234
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.144 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care ExplorationsSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207