2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmcr.2022.101663
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Spontaneous tension hemothorax in a severe COVID-19 patient receiving ECMO therapy: The other side of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 12 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Of these, 22 were excluded due to their focus on veno-arterial ECMO (V-A ECMO) or extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. Fourteen studies were excluded for lack or scarcity of data on CytoSorb© use [ 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 ], four because of the lack of specific data for the ECMO subgroup [ 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ], four because CytoSorb© was not used concomitantly with ECMO therapy [ 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ], two because outcomes of interest for the simultaneous use of CytoSorb© and ECMO were not reported [ 75 , 76 ], and one because it focused on a different device [ 77 ]. One study was excluded because it only reported preliminary findings from other articles [ 78 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of these, 22 were excluded due to their focus on veno-arterial ECMO (V-A ECMO) or extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. Fourteen studies were excluded for lack or scarcity of data on CytoSorb© use [ 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 ], four because of the lack of specific data for the ECMO subgroup [ 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ], four because CytoSorb© was not used concomitantly with ECMO therapy [ 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ], two because outcomes of interest for the simultaneous use of CytoSorb© and ECMO were not reported [ 75 , 76 ], and one because it focused on a different device [ 77 ]. One study was excluded because it only reported preliminary findings from other articles [ 78 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%