The impact of antithrombin III supplementation on prognosis during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To systematically evaluate the impact of antithrombin III (AT III) supplementation on the prognosis of patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies assessing the effects of AT III supplementation on ECMO patient outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of six studies involving 18,641 ECMO-treated patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that AT III supplementation did not reduce mortality in ECMO patients (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.85–1.60, p = 0.34) and had no significant benefit in reducing bleeding events (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.90–1.21, p = 0.56) or thrombosis (RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.81–2.05, p = 0.29). Subgroup analysis revealed that in cardiac ECMO patients, AT III supplementation was associated with an increased mortality but a reduced risk of thromboembolism. Conversely, in other ECMO support types, AT III supplementation was linked to a higher incidence of thromboembolism, with adult patients also showing an increased thromboembolism rate. No statistically significant differences were observed in other subgroup analyses. Overall, AT III supplementation does not reduce in-hospital mortality, bleeding, or thrombotic complications in ECMO patients and may even pose risks in certain populations. Therefore, routine AT III supplementation in ECMO patients may be not currently recommended.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".