Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23758929›Full record

Trial reportJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2013

Monitoring of brain oxygen saturation (INVOS) in a protocol to direct blood transfusions during cardiac surgery: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

George Vretzakis, Stavroula Georgopoulou, Konstantinos Stamoulis, Vassilios Tassoudis, Dimitrios Mikroulis, Athanasios Giannoukas, Nikolaos Tsilimingas, Menelaos Karanikolas

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. RBC Transfusion Triggers: Is There Anything New?Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2020
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Cerebral oximetry in cardiac anesthesia.Journal of thoracic disease · 2014
    Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

George VretzakisCardiac Anesthesia Unit, Anesthesiology Clinic, University of Thessaly, Biopolis, Larissa, Greece.
Stavroula Georgopoulou
Konstantinos Stamoulis
Vassilios Tassoudis
Dimitrios Mikroulis
Athanasios Giannoukas
Nikolaos Tsilimingas
Menelaos Karanikolas
University of Thessaly · GRDemocritus University of Thrace · GRWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBlood transfusions are common in cardiac surgery, but have been associated with increased morbidity and long-term mortality. Efforts to reduce blood product use during cardiac surgery include fluid restriction to minimize hemodilution, and protocols to guide transfusion decisions. INVOS is a modality that monitors brain tissue oxygen saturation, and could be useful in guiding decisions to transfuse. However, the role of INVOS (brain tissue oxygen saturation) as part of an algorithm to direct blood transfusions during cardiac surgery has not been evaluated. This study was conducted to investigate the value of INVOS as part of a protocol for blood transfusions during cardiac surgery.

methodsProspective, randomized, blinded clinical trial, on 150 (75 per group) elective cardiac surgery patients. The study was approved by the Institution Ethics committee and all patients gave written informed consent. Data were initially analyzed based on "intention to treat", but subsequently were also analyzed "per protocol".

resultsWhen protocol was strictly followed ("per protocol analysis"), compared to the control group, significantly fewer patients monitored with INVOS received any blood transfusions (46 of 70 patients in INVOS group vs. 55 of 67 patients in the control group, p = 0.029). Similarly, patients monitored with INVOS received significantly fewer units of red blood cell transfusions intraoperatively (0.20 ± 0.50 vs. 0.52 ± 0.88, p = 0.008) and overall during hospital stay (1.31 ± 1.20 vs. 1.82 ± 1.46, p = 0.024). When data from all patients (including patient with protocol violation) were analyzed together ("intention to treat analysis"), the observed reduction of blood transfusions in the INVOS group was still significant (51 of 75 patients transfused in the INVOS group vs. 63 of 75 patients transfused in the control group, p = 0.021), but the overall number of units transfused per patient did not differ significantly between the groups (1.55 ± 1.97 vs. 1.84 ± 1.41, p = 0.288).

conclusionsOur data suggest that INVOS could be a useful tool as part of an algorithm to guide decisions for blood transfusion in cardiac surgery. Additional data from rigorous, well designed studies are needed to further evaluate the role of INVOS in guiding blood transfusions in cardiac surgery, and circumvent the limitations of this study.

Indexed as

Cardiac Surgical ProceduresAgedBlood TransfusionBrainChi-Square DistributionClinical ProtocolsFemaleFluid TherapyHematocritHumansMaleMonitoring, PhysiologicOxygenProspective StudiesStatistics, NonparametricTreatment OutcomeOxygen

Identifiers

PMID23758929
PMCPMC3691733
OpenAlexW2140591260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.