ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2016
Pulmonary Perfusion and Ventilation during Cardiopulmonary Bypass Are Not Associated with Improved Postoperative Outcomes after Cardiac Surgery.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of Ventilation Discontinuation During Cardiopulmonary Bypass: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesClinical trials of either pulmonary perfusion or ventilation during cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP) are equivocal. We hypothesized that to achieve significant improvement in outcomes both interventions had to be concurrent.
designRetrospective case-control study. SETTINGS: Major academic tertiary referral medical center.
participantsTwo hundred seventy-four consecutive patients who underwent open heart surgery with CBP 2009-2013.
interventionsThe outcomes of 86 patients who received pulmonary perfusion and ventilation during CBP were retrospectively compared to the control group of 188 patients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsRespiratory complications rates were similar in both groups (33.7 vs. 33.5%), as were the rates of postoperative pneumonia (4.7 vs. 4.3%), pleural effusions (13.9 vs. 12.2%), and re-intubations (9.3 vs. 9.1%). Rates of adverse postoperative cardiac events including ventricular tachycardia (9.3 vs. 8.5%) and atrial fibrillation (33.7 vs. 28.2%) were equivalent in both groups. Incidence of sepsis (8.1 vs. 5.3%), postoperative stroke (2.3 vs. 2.1%), acute kidney injury (2.3 vs. 3.7%), and renal failure (5.8 vs. 3.7%) was likewise comparable. Despite similar transfusion requirements, coagulopathy (12.8 vs. 5.3%,
conclusionSimultaneous pulmonary perfusion and ventilation during CBP were not associated with improved clinical outcomes.
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.