MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401107716 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000209721

Epidemiology of Seizures and Association With Mortality in Adult Patients Undergoing ECMO

2024· review· en· W4401107716 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jaeho Hwang, Armaan F. Akbar, Lavienraj Premraj, Eva K. Ritzl, Sung‐Min Cho

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsEpidemiologyMedicineAssociation (psychology)PediatricsIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides lifesaving support to patients with cardiopulmonary failure. Although seizures increase mortality risks among critically ill patients broadly, studies specific to adult ECMO patients have largely been limited to single-center studies. Thus, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analyses of seizure prevalence, mortality, and their associations in adult ECMO patients. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane trial registry, Web of Science, and SCOPUS were searched on August 5, 2023. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines, we included studies of adults undergoing venovenous ECMO (VV-ECMO), venoarterial ECMO (VA-ECMO), or extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) that reported seizures during ECMO. The extracted data included study characteristics, patient demographics, ECMO support, EEG monitoring, and seizures, organized by ECMO types. Forest plot and meta-regression analyses were performed. Bias assessment was performed with the Egger test and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (n = 40,420, mean age = 51.8 years, male = 62%) were included. Data were extracted by ECMO type as follows: VV-ECMO (n = 16,633), non-ECPR VA-ECMO (n = 11,082), ECPR (n = 3,369), combination of VA-ECMO and ECPR (n = 240), and combination of all types (n = 9,096). The pooled seizure prevalence for all ECMO types was 3.0%, not significantly different across ECMO types (VV-ECMO = 2.0% [95% CI 0.8-4.5]; VA-ECMO = 3.5% [95% CI 1.7-7.0]; ECPR = 4.9% [95% CI 1.3-17.2]). The pooled mortality was lower for VV-ECMO (46.2% [95% CI 39.3-53.2]) than VA-ECMO (63.4% [95% CI 56.6-69.6]) and ECPR (61.5% [95% CI 57.3-65.6]). Specifically, for VV-ECMO, the pooled mortality of patients with and without seizures was 55.1% and 36.7%, respectively (relative risk = 1.5 [95% CI 1.3-1.7]). Similarly, for VA-ECMO, the pooled mortality of patients with and without seizures was 74.4% and 56.1%, respectively (relative risk = 1.3 [95% CI 1.2-1.5]). Meta-regression analyses demonstrated that seizure prevalence was not associated with prior neurologic comorbidities, adjusted for ECMO type and study year. DISCUSSION: Seizures are infrequent during ECMO support. However, they were associated with increased mortality when present. Multi-institutional, larger-scale studies using standardized EEG monitoring are necessary to further understand the risk factors of specific classes of seizures for individual ECMO types, and their effects on mortality. Limitations of our study include missing data for details on seizure types, sedating/antiseizure medications used during ECMO, other ECMO-related complications, and EEG recording protocols.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.013
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207