345: Compartment Pressure Monitoring in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) remains a mainstay rescue therapy for patients in cardiogenic shock. Classic cannulation strategy for VA-ECMO entails femoral vessel cannulation but risks acute limb ischemia (ALI). This study evaluates continuous compartment pressure monitors in patients on VA-ECMO. Methods: A retrospective review was completed between 9/2024 and 6/2025 in patients that underwent femoral VA-ECMO. Following VA-ECMO cannulation, MY01 Continuous Compartmental Pressure Monitors (Montreal, QC) were placed in bilateral legs. Demographic, ECMO, and vasopressor data were collected. The relationships between leg compartment pressure, ECMO flow, DPC use, MAPs, and vasopressor use were compared. Results: 9 patients underwent VA-ECMO. Median age was 63 (56-69), BMI 34 (32-36). 67% were male, 75% white. 67% had 15F arterial cannula, 67% had a 25F venous cannula. 22% had DPC placed and 45% had ipsilateral cannulation. 0 patients had ALI requiring surgical intervention. There is no relationship between the pressure of the arterially cannulated and ECMO flow or vasopressors (p>.05). An inverse relationship exists between patient MAP and pressures of the arterially cannulated leg (p<.05). In the non-arterially cannulated leg, there is a positive relationship between compartment pressure and vasopressor use, and an inverse relationship with VA-ECMO flow (p<.05). Conclusion: Continuous pressure monitoring can be used to guide examination in patients with compartment syndrome risk. In VA-ECMO, pressures within arterially cannulated legs were inversely related to MAP. Compartment pressures were unchanged by DPC placement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".