MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412751655 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000006806

Pharmacological Research Agenda on Adult Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Using the Delphi Method: A Position Paper of the Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Pharmacology Network

2025· article· en· W4412751655 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Morales Castro, Abdulrahman Al‐Fares, Gianluca Paternoster, Haifa Lyster, Benjamin Hohlfelder, Julián Arias Ortiz, Mohd H. Abdul‐Aziz, Daniel J. Herr, Rawan Alraish, Andrea Isabel Contreras, Marcela Palavecino, Luigi Milella, Kevin Watt, Afrah Alkazemi, Federico Carini, Jordi Riera, Alba Pau Parra, Vivek Kakar, Pauline Dureau, Marc‐Alexandre Duceppe, Stephanie Cha, Kiran Shekar, Amy Dzierba

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationIntensive care medicineSedationPharmacodynamicsPosition paperPharmacologyPharmacokineticsAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a critical intervention for patients with severe cardiac or respiratory failure. However, pharmacological management for ECMO-supported patients presents unique challenges due to alterations in drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics induced by the ECMO circuit and underlying critical illness. This position paper identifies key research priorities in ECMO pharmacology using a structured Delphi consensus process and provides a focused review of current evidence and knowledge gaps to inform future research and clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: An international panel of 25 ECMO pharmacology experts from 13 countries representing the ECMO Pharmacology Network contributed to this position paper. Literature was reviewed to summarize current evidence and identify knowledge gaps in ECMO pharmacology. STUDY SELECTION: The Delphi process involved iterative, anonymous voting by the expert panel to propose key research priorities. Items selected were based on their perceived importance to improving clinical outcomes and advancing pharmacological management in ECMO-supported patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Key research priorities were identified, and a detailed literature review was conducted for each, focusing on pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, related therapeutic challenges, and knowledge gaps. Future research directions were outlined. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six critical ECMO pharmacotherapy research priorities were identified: 1) pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics reporting, 2) interactions between ECMO and renal replacement therapy, 3) antimicrobial dosing, 4) analgesia and sedation for pain and agitation, 5) sedation and neuromuscular blocking agents for increased work of breathing, and 6) anticoagulation. The review for the key research priorities highlighted substantial gaps in the existing literature, emphasizing the need for comprehensive studies addressing these issues to enhance pharmacotherapy in ECMO patients, improve clinical outcomes, and contribute to the development of evidence-based guidelines for this complex population. CONCLUSIONS: ECMO presents unique challenges to drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, complicating pharmacotherapy in critically ill patients. Further research addressing identified gaps is essential to develop evidence-based treatment strategies and enhance patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207