Why the study?
This study was conducted to investigate the prevalence and risk factors associated with venous thrombotic events in patients receiving ECMO support.
What is the prevalence and what are the risk factors for venous thrombotic events in patients receiving ECMO support?
What is the prevalence and what are the risk factors for venous thrombotic events in patients receiving ECMO support?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Venous thrombotic events are highly prevalent (48%) in patients receiving ECMO support, with risk increased by longer duration of support, abnormal anticoagulation monitoring, and specific cannulation types.
This study investigates the prevalence and risk factors associated with venous thrombotic events in patients receiving (ECMO) support. Systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest databases from inception through November 25, 2023.Case-control and cohort studies focusing on the prevalence and risk factors for venous thrombotic events in patients supported by ECMO. Identification of risk factors and calculation of incidence rates. Nineteen studies encompassing 10,767 participants were identified and included in the analysis. The pooled prevalence of venous thrombotic events among patients receiving ECMO support was 48% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37–0.60, I 2 = 97.18%]. Factors associated with increased incidence rates included longer duration of ECMO support (odds ratio [OR] 1.08, 95% CI 1.07-1.09, I 2 = 49%), abnormal anti-coagulation monitoring indicators (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, I 2 = 84%), and type of ECMO cannulation (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.14-3.34, I 2 = 64%). The pooled prevalence of venous thrombotic events in patients with ECMO support is high. Increased risk is associated with extended duration of ECMO support, abnormal anti-coagulation monitoring, and specific types of ECMO cannulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhu et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: