Trial reportThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2015
Comparison of Warm Blood Cardioplegia Delivery With or Without the Use of a Roller Pump.
Trial report in The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Various techniques for administration of blood cardioplegia are used worldwide. In this study, the effect of warm blood cardioplegia administration with or without the use of a roller pump on perioperative myocardial injury was studied in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting using minimal extra-corporeal circuits (MECCs). Sixty-eight patients undergoing elective coronary bypass surgery with an MECC system were consecutively enrolled and randomized into a pumpless group (PL group: blood cardioplegia administration without roller pump) or roller pump group (RP group: blood cardioplegia administration with roller pump). No statistically significant differences were found between the PL group and RP group regarding release of cardiac biomarkers. Maximum postoperative biomarker values reached at T1 (after arrival intensive care unit) for heart-type fatty acid binding protein (2.7 [1.5; 6.0] ng/mL PL group vs. 3.2 [1.6; 6.3] ng/mL RP group, p = .63) and at T3 (first postoperative day) for troponin T high-sensitive (22.0 [14.5; 29.3] ng/L PL group vs. 21.1 [15.3; 31.6] ng/L RP group, p = .91), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (2.1 [1.7; 2.9] ng/mL PL group vs. 2.6 [1.6; 3.6] ng/mL RP group, p = .48), and C-reactive protein (138 [106; 175] μg/mL PL group vs. 129 [105; 161] μg/mL RP group, p = .65). Besides this, blood cardioplegia flow, blood cardioplegia line pressure, and aortic root pressure during blood cardioplegia administration were similar between the two groups. Administration of warm blood cardioplegia with or without the use of a roller pump results in similar clinically acceptable myocardial protection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26834282PMC4730163W2410182417What 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.