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.

Cardiac surgery on patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on global surgery. In particular, deleterious effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the heart and cardiovascular system have been described. To inform surgical patients, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis aiming to characterize outcomes of COVID-19 positive patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021228533) and conformed with PRISMA 2020 and MOOSE guidelines. PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched between 1 January 2019 to 24 February 2022 for studies reporting outcomes on COVID-19 positive patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Study screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted in duplicate. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model where at least two studies had sufficient data for that variable. RESULTS: Searches identified 4223 articles of which 18 studies were included with a total 44 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Within these studies, 12 (66.7%) reported populations undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, three (16.7%) aortic valve replacements (AVR) and three (16.7%) aortic dissection repairs. Overall mean postoperative length of ICU stay was 3.39 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38, 6.39) and mean postoperative length of hospital stay was 17.88 (95% CI: 14.57, 21.19). CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated studies of limited quality which characterized cardiac surgery in COVID-19 positive patients and demonstrates that these patients have poor outcomes. Further issues to be explored are effects of COVID-19 on decision-making in cardiac surgery, and effects of COVID-19 on the cardiovascular system at a cellular level.