ArticleBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery
Coronary Perfusion Pressure during Antegrade Cardioplegia in On-Pump CABG Patients.
Article in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether aortic tension estimated by palpation and cardioplegia infusion line pressure provide results equivalent to those obtained with direct aortic intraluminal pressure measurement.
methods: Sixty consecutive patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgeries with extracorporeal circulation were analyzed. Sanguineous cardioplegic solution in a ratio of 4:1 was administered using a triple lumen antegrade cannula. After crossclamping, cardioplegia was infused and aortic root pressure was recorded by surgeon (A) considering the aortic tension he felt in his fingertips. At the same time, another surgeon (B) recorded his results for the same measurement. Concomitantly, the anesthesiologist recorded intraluminal pressure in the aortic root and the perfusionist recorded delta pressure in cardioplegia infusion line. None of the participants involved in these measurements was allowed to be informed about the values provided by the other examiners.
results: The Bland-Altman test showed that a considerable variation between aortic wall tension was found as measured by palpation and by intraluminal pressure, with a bias of -9.911±18.75% (95% limits of agreement: -46.7 to 26.9). No strong correlation was observed between intraluminal pressure and cardioplegia line pressure (Spearman's r=0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.5-0.7; P<0.0001).
conclusion: These findings reinforce that cardioplegia infusion should be controlled by measuring intraluminal pressure, and that palpation and cardioplegia line pressure are inaccurate methods, the latter should always be used to complement intraluminal measurement to ensure greater safety in handling the cardioplegia circuit.
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.