Trial reportAnnals of cardiac anaesthesia
Prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing use of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography to standard care during radical cystectomy.
Trial report in Annals of cardiac anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-drug perioperative interventions to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications after abdominal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Pooled it
- Perioperative restrictive versus goal-directed fluid therapy for adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur prospective, randomized clinical study aims to evaluate the utility of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in patients undergoing radical cystectomy. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty patients were randomized to a standard of care group or the intervention group that received continuous intraoperative TEE. Data are presented as means ± standard deviations, median (25
resultsBoth groups had similar preoperative demographic characteristics. There was a significant difference between central line insertion with all insertions in the control group (15%, 6 vs. 0%, 0; P < 0.003). Of all the perioperative complications, 80% occurred in the control group versus 20% in the TEE group, with 21% of controls experiencing a cardiac or pulmonary complication compared to 5% in the TEE group (8 vs. 2, P < 0.04). The control group patients were more likely to have adverse cardiac complications than the TEE group (15%, 6 vs. 3%, 1; P < 0.040). Postoperative cardiac arrhythmia was observed only in the control group (13%, 5 vs. 0%, 0; P <.007). Prolonged intubation was only observed in the control group (10%, 4 vs. 0%, 0; P < 0.017).
conclusionTEE can be a useful monitoring tool in patients undergoing radical cystectomy, limiting the use of central line insertion and potentially translating into earlier extubation and decreased postoperative cardiac morbidities.
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.