Trends in the Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Literature: A Bibliometric Analysis in the COVID-19 Era.

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) was first used in the 1970s. Its use is increasingly common in critical care and perioperative settings and has gained newfound prominence during COVID-19. To guide future research, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of ECMO literature. Thomson Reuters Web of Science was searched to March 7, 2021. Articles were ranked by total number of citations. Data was extracted from the 100 most cited papers relevant to ECMO for study design, topic, author, year, and institution. Journal impact factor for 2019 and Eigenfactor scores were also recorded. Our search retrieved a total of 18,802 articles. Median number of citations for the top 100 articles was 220 (range 157-1,819). These were published in 34 journals, with first authors originating from 15 countries. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery had the highest number of articles (n = 9) while Lancet publications had the most citations (n = 3,191). Use of ECMO was most commonly observed in cardiogenic shock or acute respiratory distress syndrome. United States had the greatest article output (n = 49). With 10 publications, 2013 was the most prolific year. Using linear regression, when controlled for time since publication, there was no statistically significant relationship between 2019 journal impact factor and number of article citations (p = .09). Top articles in the ECMO literature are of considerable impact and quality. As the United States produced the bulk of the prominent evidence base, and most data were regarding respiratory issues, outsized advances in ECMO may be possible within the United States during the COVID-19 era.

Review of topical gelatin-based haemostatic agents; an insidious culprit of intraoperative anaphylaxis?

BACKGROUND: An under-recognized complication of gelatin-based haemostatic agents is their potential to cause anaphylactic reactions. This review aims to collate and analyse case in the literature of intraoperative anaphylaxis secondary to locally applied haemostatic agents. METHODS: An electronic search was performed on databases Medline, Embase, Pubmed and ProQuest. A total of 7671 articles were reviewed from title and abstract. After exclusion criteria and duplicates removed, 19 articles with 21 cases were included for analysis. Data extracted from each of the articles included patient demographics, haemostatic agent used, surgery type, known allergies and any objective evidence of hypersensitivity post anaphylactic episode, that is tryptase levels, IgE levels, skin prick testing. RESULTS: Fifty-seven percent of cases involved patients <18 years of age; 57% of cases involved spinal surgery; 100% of cases displayed objective evidence of hypersensitivity (tryptase levels, bovine or porcine IgE levels, or skin prick testing). Thirty-three percent of patients had exposure preoperatively to a known agent causing anaphylaxis or allergy which would preclude the use of a gelatin-based haemostat. These products included vaccines, spam meats, red meat, Jell-O and CollaPlug. Gelatin-based haemostat agents included Floseal, Gelfoam, Surgiflo, fibrin glue, Avitene, haemofibrine sponge, topical bovine thrombin and thrombin-soaked gelatin. CONCLUSION: Increased awareness of allergy to gelatin-based haemostats for surgical and anaesthetic is imperative, with 33% of cases having a known contraindication to gelatin-based haemostat. This review highlights important aspects in the pre-operative patient history and post-event patient investigation that could assist anaesthetists and surgeons in the prevention of future events.