Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 538

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Ouweneel, Dagmar M., Schotborgh, Jasper V., Limpens, Jacqueline, Sjauw, Krischan D., Engström, A. E., Lagrand, Wim K., Cherpanath, Thomas G. V., Driessen, Antoine H. G., de Mol, Bas A. J. M., Henriques, José P. S.·2016·Intensive Care Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s00134-016-4536-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Veno-arterial extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is increasingly used in patients during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock, to support both cardiac and pulmonary function. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing mortality in patients treated with and without ECLS support in the setting of refractory cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the publisher subset of PubMed updated to December 2015. Thirteen studies were included of which nine included cardiac arrest patients (n = 3098) and four included patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (n = 235). Data were pooled by a Mantel-Haenzel random effects model and heterogeneity was examined by the I 2 statistic. In cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an absolute increase of 30 days survival of 13 % compared with patients in which ECLS was not used [95 % CI 6–20 %; p < 0.001; number needed to treat (NNT) 7.7] and a higher rate of favourable neurological outcome at 30 days (absolute risk difference 14 %; 95 % CI 7–20 %; p < 0.0001; NNT 7.1). Propensity matched analysis, including 5 studies and 438 patients (219 in both groups), showed similar results. In cardiogenic shock, ECLS showed a 33 % higher 30-day survival compared with IABP (95 % CI, 14–52 %; p < 0.001; NNT 13) but no difference when compared with TandemHeart/Impella (−3 %; 95 % CI −21 to 14 %; p = 0.70; NNH 33). In cardiac arrest, the use of ECLS was associated with an increased survival rate as well as an increase in favourable neurological outcome. In the setting of cardiogenic shock there was an increased survival with ECLS compared with IABP.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00134-016-4536-8

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 36 references

Cited by

See all 538

Metadata

Authors
Ouweneel, D. M., Schotborgh, J. V., Limpens, J., Sjauw, K. D., Engström, A. E., Lagrand, W. K., Cherpanath, T. G. V., Driessen, A. H. G., de Mol, B. A. J. M., & Henriques, J. P. S.
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-09-19
Volume
42
Issue
12
Pages
1922-1934
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
DOI
10.1007/s00134-016-4536-8
OpenAlex
W2521854974
Cited by
538
References
36
FWCI
3.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00134-016-4536-8
The paper
Ouweneel, D. M., Schotborgh, J. V., Limpens, J., Sjauw, K. D., Engström, A. E., Lagrand, W. K., Cherpanath, T. G. V., Driessen, A. H. G., de Mol, B. A. J. M., & Henriques, J. P. S. (2016). Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4536-8

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.