The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in cardiogenic shock: a narrative review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Cardiogenic shock (CS) develops in up to 10% of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and carries a 50% risk of mortality. Despite the paucity of evidence regarding its benefits, venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used in clinical practice in patients with AMI in CS (AMI-CS). This review aims to provide an in-depth description of the four available randomized controlled trials to date designed to evaluate the benefit of VA-ECMO in patients with AMI-CS. Methods and results: The literature search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, and clinicaltrials.gov to identify the four relevant randomized control trials from years of inception to October 2023. Despite differences in patient selection, nuances in trial conduction, and variability in trial endpoints, all four trials (ECLS-SHOCK I, ECMO-CS, EUROSHOCK, and ECLS-SHOCK) failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit with the use of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS, with high rates of device-related complications. However, the outcome of these trials is nuanced by the limitations of each study that include small sample sizes, challenging patient selection, and high cross-over rates to the intervention group, and lack of use of left ventricular unloading strategies. Conclusion: The presented literature of VA-ECMO in CS does not support its routine use in clinical practice. We have yet to identify which subset of patients would benefit most from this intervention. This review emphasizes the need for designing adequately powered trials to properly assess the role of VA-ECMO in AMI-CS, in order to build evidence for best practices.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it