Systematic Review of Ex Vivo and In Vivo Pharmacokinetic Studies of Drugs Commonly Used During Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a lifesaving treatment for critically ill patients in cardiac or respiratory failure refractory to conventional treatment. Patients on an ECMO circuit (pump, oxygenator, tubing) require numerous medications including sedatives, analgesics, cardioactive medications, and anticonvulsants. Currently, there are few dosing guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy in this situation. A systematic review was conducted to describe pharmacokinetics (PK) of medications commonly used during ECMO. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, BIOSIS, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched. All articles presenting ex vivo, animal, and human data on the PK of the subject medications in the ECMO circuit were included. Three authors independently examined citation titles and abstracts. Four authors extracted relevant details from included studies into standardized data extraction forms. Methodological quality was assessed using the ClinPK guidelines and the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist. Forty-four studies examining 30 medications were included, 26 ex vivo studies (mostly adult circuits) and 18 observational studies (mainly neonatal patients). Pharmacokinetics varied depending on the medication's characteristics, study type, and population. Study quality was variable, limiting the possibility of deriving hard dosing guidelines from this available literature. Further population PK studies are needed to adequately determine dosing guidelines in adults and children requiring 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".