ArticleEBioMedicine2015
Continuous Postoperative Pericardial Flushing: A Pilot Study on Safety, Feasibility, and Effect on Blood Loss.
Article in EBioMedicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Continuous postoperative pericardial flushing to reduce the risk of postoperative bleeding after elective adult cardiac surgery - a study-level meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Continuous postoperative pericardial flushing method versus standard care for wound drainage after adult cardiac surgery: A randomized controlled trial.EBioMedicine · 2020Trial
- Effects of Continuous Postoperative Pericardial FLUshing with Investigational Device on Postoperative Re-Explorations for Bleeding (FLUID)-Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Drainology: Leveraging research in chest-drain management to enhance recovery after cardiothoracic surgery.JTCVS techniques · 2024Article
- Continuous postoperative pericardial flushing reduces postoperative bleeding after coronary artery bypass grafting: A randomized trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2021Article
- Feasibility and acceptability of continuous postoperative pericardial flushing for blood loss reduction in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProlonged or excessive blood loss is a common complication after cardiac surgery. Blood remnants and clots, remaining in the pericardial space in spite of chest tube drainage, induce high fibrinolytic activity that may contribute to bleeding complications. Continuous postoperative pericardial flushing (CPPF) with an irrigation solution may reduce blood loss by preventing the accumulation of clots. In this pilot study, the safety and feasibility of CPPF were evaluated and the effect on blood loss and other related complications was investigated.
methodsBetween November 2011 and April 2012 twenty-one adult patients undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease (CHD) received CPPF from sternal closure up to 12 h postoperative. With an inflow Redivac drain that was inserted through one of the chest tube incision holes, an irrigation solution (NaCl 0.9% at 38 °C) was delivered to the pericardial cavity using a volume controlled flushing system. Safety aspects, feasibility issues and complications were registered. The mean actual blood loss in the CPPF group was compared to the mean of a retrospective group (n = 126).
resultsCPPF was successfully completed in 20 (95.2%) patients, and no method related complications were observed. Feasibility was good in this experimental setting. Patients receiving CPPF showed a 30% (P = 0.038) decrease in mean actual blood loss 12 h postoperatively.
conclusionsCPPF after cardiac surgery was found to be safe and feasible in this experimental setting. The clinically relevant effect on blood loss needs to be confirmed in a randomized clinical trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.