Xiaoying Yang, Min Xiang, Lifang Wu, Meng He, Hongyan Zhu
{"title":"静脉体外膜肺氧合治疗急性高危肺栓塞后的存活率:比较研究的荟萃分析。","authors":"Xiaoying Yang, Min Xiang, Lifang Wu, Meng He, Hongyan Zhu","doi":"10.12669/pjms.41.1.10568","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The survival benefit of venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) for the management of acute high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unclear. This meta-analysis combines data from comparative studies to assess the risk of mortality after ECMO vs standard care in the management of acute high-risk PE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched from 01<sup>st</sup> January 2000 to 24<sup>th</sup> March 2023 for comparative studies with at least 10 patients/group comparing ECMO vs standard treatment. PRISMA guidelines were followed for this review. We extracted mortality data and combined it to obtain the outcome as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies were included. Meta-analysis showed that the risk of early mortality was not significantly different between ECMO and non-ECMO groups (RR: 0.97 95% CI: 0.78, 1.19 I<sup>2</sup>=73%). No change in significance was noted on subgroup analysis based on study location, sample size, cardiac arrest, systemic thrombolysis, and surgical embolectomy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Limited evidence derived from mostly retrospective studies riddled with selection bias suggests that ECMO may not offer additional survival benefits in high-risk PE.</p>","PeriodicalId":19958,"journal":{"name":"Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":"41 1","pages":"312-317"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11755287/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survival after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute high-risk Pulmonary Embolism: A meta-analysis of comparative studies.\",\"authors\":\"Xiaoying Yang, Min Xiang, Lifang Wu, Meng He, Hongyan Zhu\",\"doi\":\"10.12669/pjms.41.1.10568\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The survival benefit of venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) for the management of acute high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unclear. This meta-analysis combines data from comparative studies to assess the risk of mortality after ECMO vs standard care in the management of acute high-risk PE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched from 01<sup>st</sup> January 2000 to 24<sup>th</sup> March 2023 for comparative studies with at least 10 patients/group comparing ECMO vs standard treatment. PRISMA guidelines were followed for this review. We extracted mortality data and combined it to obtain the outcome as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies were included. Meta-analysis showed that the risk of early mortality was not significantly different between ECMO and non-ECMO groups (RR: 0.97 95% CI: 0.78, 1.19 I<sup>2</sup>=73%). No change in significance was noted on subgroup analysis based on study location, sample size, cardiac arrest, systemic thrombolysis, and surgical embolectomy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Limited evidence derived from mostly retrospective studies riddled with selection bias suggests that ECMO may not offer additional survival benefits in high-risk PE.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19958,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"312-317\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11755287/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.41.1.10568\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.41.1.10568","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:静脉动脉体外膜氧合(ECMO)治疗急性高危肺栓塞(PE)的生存效益尚不清楚。本荟萃分析结合了来自比较研究的数据,以评估急性高风险PE管理中ECMO与标准护理后的死亡率风险。方法:检索PubMed、CENTRAL、Scopus、Web of Science和Embase数据库,检索2000年1月1日至2023年3月24日至少10例患者/组ECMO与标准治疗的比较研究。本次审查遵循PRISMA指南。我们提取死亡率数据并将其合并,以随机效应模型中具有95%置信区间(CI)的风险比(RR)作为结果。结果:纳入10项研究。meta分析显示,ECMO组与非ECMO组早期死亡风险无显著差异(RR: 0.97 95% CI: 0.78, 1.19 I2=73%)。基于研究位置、样本量、心脏骤停、全身溶栓和手术栓塞的亚组分析没有发现显著性变化。结论:来自大多数充满选择偏倚的回顾性研究的有限证据表明,ECMO可能不会为高风险PE提供额外的生存益处。
Survival after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute high-risk Pulmonary Embolism: A meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Objective: The survival benefit of venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) for the management of acute high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unclear. This meta-analysis combines data from comparative studies to assess the risk of mortality after ECMO vs standard care in the management of acute high-risk PE.
Methods: Databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched from 01st January 2000 to 24th March 2023 for comparative studies with at least 10 patients/group comparing ECMO vs standard treatment. PRISMA guidelines were followed for this review. We extracted mortality data and combined it to obtain the outcome as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in a random-effects model.
Results: Ten studies were included. Meta-analysis showed that the risk of early mortality was not significantly different between ECMO and non-ECMO groups (RR: 0.97 95% CI: 0.78, 1.19 I2=73%). No change in significance was noted on subgroup analysis based on study location, sample size, cardiac arrest, systemic thrombolysis, and surgical embolectomy.
Conclusion: Limited evidence derived from mostly retrospective studies riddled with selection bias suggests that ECMO may not offer additional survival benefits in high-risk PE.
期刊介绍:
It is a peer reviewed medical journal published regularly since 1984. It was previously known as quarterly "SPECIALIST" till December 31st 1999. It publishes original research articles, review articles, current practices, short communications & case reports. It attracts manuscripts not only from within Pakistan but also from over fifty countries from abroad.
Copies of PJMS are sent to all the import medical libraries all over Pakistan and overseas particularly in South East Asia and Asia Pacific besides WHO EMRO Region countries. Eminent members of the medical profession at home and abroad regularly contribute their write-ups, manuscripts in our publications. We pursue an independent editorial policy, which allows an opportunity to the healthcare professionals to express their views without any fear or favour. That is why many opinion makers among the medical and pharmaceutical profession use this publication to communicate their viewpoint.