Prone positioning during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evidence supporting the benefit on clinical outcomes of prone positioning during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure remains inconclusive. We aimed to assess the association of prone positioning, compared to no prone positioning, with 28-day mortality and other clinical outcomes in different patient subgroups. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a random-effects model was conducted. An electronic database search up to September 1st, 2024 was performed (PROSPERO CRD42024517602). The RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools were used for risk of bias assessments. We analyzed two RCTs and 20 non-RCTs (3,465 patients). Compared to no prone positioning, the use of prone positioning was associated with lower 28-day (odds ratio [OR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42–0.98, p = 0.040, I 2 = 66%, low certainty of evidence [CoE]) and hospital mortality (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54–0.83, p < 0.001, I 2 = 39%, low CoE), despite fewer 28-day ventilator-free days and longer ECMO duration. Younger age (p = 0.005), a higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (p = 0.022), non-Covid-19 etiology (p = 0.003), and lower rates of prone positioning before cannulation (p = 0.049) were associated with a greater benefit from prone positioning. In this analysis, among patients supported with V-V ECMO for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, we observed improved 28-day and hospital mortality in those who received prone positioning, compared to those who did not. However, these findings do not imply causation. Further research is needed to clarify the role of prone positioning in this population.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".