Outcomes of Patients Transported in the Prone Position to a Regional Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Center: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prone positioning is associated with improved mortality in patients with moderate/severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and has been increasingly used throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. In patients with refractory hypoxemia, transfer to an extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) center may improve outcome but may be challenging due to severely compromised gas exchange. Transport of these patients in prone position may be advantageous; however, there is a paucity of data on their outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this retrospective cohort study was to describe the early outcomes of ARDS patients transported in prone position for evaluation at a regional ECMO center. A secondary objective was to examine the safety of their transport in the prone position. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: This study used patient charts from Ornge and Toronto General Hospital in Ontario, Canada, between February 1, 2020, and November 31, 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Patient with ARDS transported in the prone position for ECMO evaluation to Toronto General Hospital. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Descriptive analysis of patients transported in the prone position and their outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred fifteen patients were included. Seventy-two received ECMO (63%) and 51 died (44%) with ARDS and sepsis as the most common listed causes of death. Patients were transported primarily for COVID-related indications (93%). Few patients required additional analgesia (8%), vasopressors (4%), or experienced clinically relevant desaturation during transport (2%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort of patients with severe ARDS transported in prone position had outcomes ranging from similar to better compared with existing literature. Prone transport was performed safely with few complications or escalation in treatments. Prone transport to an ECMO center should be regarded as safe and potentially beneficial for patients with ARDS and refractory hypoxemia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".