Practice patterns in extracorporeal life support in tertiary cardiac intensive care units in north america: a survey-based analysis from the critical care cardiology trials network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background The use of veno-arterial (VA) and veno-venous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has significantly increased in the last decade. However, there is substantial variability in practice patterns between institutions. To date, the optimal ECMO program model is unclear and possible differences between ECMO centers in staffing, organization and team structure have been poorly characterized. Purpose Our aim was to describe contemporary practices of care for patients undergoing ECMO in tertiary cardiac centers in North America. Methods An 11-question anonymous survey was sent to all participating sites in the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN), a prospective registry of advanced cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America, coordinated by the TIMI Study Group. The survey evaluated ECMO staffing models, decision-making processes, cannulation and longitudinal care. Results The response rate was 100% (39/39) across CCCTN centers. The decision to proceed with VA ECMO was made as a team in 79% of the cases and in 58.3% of the VV ECMO cases, rather than by an individual specialty. An ECMO consult service was used in 67% of the centers, and integrated with the cardiogenic shock team in 58%. The most common specialty participating in the ECMO service was cardiothoracic surgery (CTS) (73.1%), followed by heart failure specialists (38.5%), with critical care cardiology (CCC) in only 23.1% of the centers (Figure 1A). In the majority of centers, VA ECMO cannulation was performed by CTS alone (46.2%), Interventional cardiology (IC) and CTS (38.5%), and IC alone (7.7%, Figure 1B). Cannulation for VA ECMO was not performed by intensivists at any center. VV ECMO cannulations were performed by CTS in 51.3%, intensivists in 17.9% and IC in 2.6% of the centers. VA ECMO patients were admitted to the cardiovascular surgical intensive care unit in 64.1% of centers, with 20.5 % admitted to the CICU (Figure 1C). VV ECMO patients were admitted to the cardiovascular surgical intensive care unit in 36.8% of sites, and the medical intensive care unit in 34.2%. The most common ECMO specialist model was having a perfusionist at the bedside, followed by nurse specialist (Figure 1D). Specialty services consulted within 24-48 hours of cannulation included physical therapy in 48.7%, palliative care in 30.8%, and bioethics in only 2.6% of centers. Simulation-based ECMO training is performed in 59% of the centers. Half (51.3%) of the centers perform ECPR, while 17.9% reported plans of developing a program. Conclusions Although there is significant variability in ECMO cannulation, location of care, staffing practices in advanced CICUs in North America, a multidisciplinary team approach is common in ECMO centers, with early involvement of physical therapy and palliative care specialists. Further research to establish the optimal model for ECMO programs is of high importance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".