Mortality in Patients with Obesity and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Receiving Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: The Multicenter ECMObesity Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Patients with obesity are at increased risk for developing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Some centers consider obesity a relative contraindication to receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support, despite growing implementation of ECMO for ARDS in the general population. Objectives To investigate the association between obesity and mortality in patients with ARDS receiving ECMO. Methods In this large, international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the association of obesity, defined as body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2, with ICU mortality in patients receiving ECMO for ARDS by performing adjusted multivariable logistic regression and propensity score matching. Measurements and Main Results Of 790 patients with ARDS receiving ECMO in our study, 320 had obesity. Of those, 24.1% died in the ICU, compared with 35.3% of patients without obesity (P < 0.001). In adjusted models, obesity was associated with lower ICU mortality (odds ratio, 0.63 [95% confidence interval, 0.43–0.93]; P = 0.018). Examined as a continuous variable, higher body mass index was associated with decreased ICU mortality in multivariable regression (odds ratio, 0.97 [95% confidence interval, 0.95–1.00]; P = 0.023). In propensity score matching of 199 patients with obesity to 199 patients without, patients with obesity had a lower probability of ICU death than those without (22.6% vs. 35.2%; P = 0.007). Conclusions Among patients receiving ECMO for ARDS, those with obesity had lower ICU mortality than patients without obesity in multivariable and propensity score matching analyses. Our findings support the notion that obesity should not be considered a general contraindication to ECMO.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".