Cited by 398Respiratory Support and MechanismsMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesNeonatal Respiratory Health Research

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Munshi, Laveena, Walkey, Allan, Goligher, Ewan, Pham, Tai, Uleryk, Elizabeth M, Fan, Eddy·2019·The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

Abstract

Background Use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in adults with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome has increased in the past 10 years. However, the efficacy of venovenous ECMO in people with acute respiratory distress syndrome is uncertain according to the most recent data. We aimed to estimate the effect of venovenous ECMO on mortality from acute respiratory distress syndrome.Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE (including MEDLINE In-Process and Epub Ahead of Print), Embase and the Wiley search platform in the Cochrane database for randomised controlled trials and observational studies with matching of conventional mechanical ventilation with and without venovenous ECMO in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were screened in duplicate by two investigators. Data for study design, patient characteristics, interventions, and study outcomes were abstracted independently and in duplicate. Studies were weighted with the inverse variance method and data were pooled via random-effects modelling. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs to summarise results. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality across randomised controlled trials. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines were used to rate the quality of evidence FINDINGS: We included five studies, two randomised controlled trials and three observational studies with matching techniques (total N=773 patients). In the primary analysis, which included two randomised controlled trials with a total population of 429 patients, 60-day mortality was significantly lower in the venovenous ECMO group than in the control group (73 [34%] of 214 vs 101 [47%] of 215; RR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58-0·92]; p=0·008; I 2 0%). The GRADE level of evidence for this outcome was moderate. Three studies included data for the incidence of major haemorrhage in the ECMO group. 48 (19%) of the 251 patients in these three studies had major haemorrhages.Interpretation Compared with conventional mechanical ventilation, use of venovenous ECMO in adults with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome was associated with reduced 60-day mortality. However, venovenous ECMO was also associated with a moderate risk of major bleeding. These findings have important implications surrounding decision making for management of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome at centres providing venovenous ECMO.Funding None.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2213-2600(18)30452-1

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • However, one recent systematic review found that VV ECMO delivered at expert centers reduced mortality for patients with severe ARDS.

    “However, one recent systematic review found that VV ECMO delivered at expert centers reduced mortality for patients with severe ARDS [475].”
  • Venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is used in patients with severe acute respiratory failure to facilitate gas exchange in the setting of refractory hypoxaemia or hypercapnic respiratory acidosis.

    “Venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is used in patients with severe acute respiratory failure to facilitate gas exchange in the setting of refractory hypoxaemia or hypercapnic respiratory acidosis [475].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Munshi, L., Walkey, A., Goligher, E., Pham, T., Uleryk, E. M., & Fan, E.
Affiliations
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Munshi, Laveena
Venue
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-02
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
163-172
ISSN
2213-2600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2911047707
Cited by
398
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 87 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 17
FWCI
9.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet Respiratory Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Neonatal Respiratory Health Research
Keywords
veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, 60-day mortality, major bleeding, mechanical ventilation, severe respiratory failure, treatment decision-making, quality of evidence grading, GRADE, risk of bias assessment, heterogeneity of evidence
MeSH terms
Adult, Cause of Death, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reference Values, Respiration, Artificial, Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Severity of Illness Index, Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation, Survival Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Hospital Mortality, Risk Assessment, Observational Studies as Topic

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