ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2020
Feasibility and acceptability of continuous postoperative pericardial flushing for blood loss reduction in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- 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
- Adjusted preoperative variables to predict perioperative red blood cell transfusion in 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPostoperative bleeding requires blood transfusion and surgical re-exploration that can affect the short- and long-term postoperative outcomes. Interventions that can be used in the postoperative period to reduce blood loss should be developed. Continuous postoperative pericardial flushing (CPPF) with an irrigation solution may reduce blood loss by preventing the accumulation of clots. This study examined the feasibility and acceptability of CPPF for reducing bleeding after coronary artery bypass surgery.
methodsThis pilot study adopted a prospective and group comparison design. Between January and April 2018, 42 patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass surgery received CPPF from sternal closure up to 8 h postoperative. The mean actual blood loss in the CPPF group was compared to the mean of retrospectively group (n = 58). In the CPPF group, an extra infusion catheter was inserted through one of the tube incision holes and an irrigation solution (0.9% NaCl at 38 °C) was delivered to the pericardial cavity by using a volumetric pump. Safety aspects, feasibility issues, and complications were documented. The primary outcome was blood loss, and it was assessed 18 h after the surgery.
resultsCPPF was successfully completed in 40 patients (95.24%). Method-related complications were not observed. Feasibility was good in this experimental setting. Blood loss was lower in the CPPF group (257.24 mL) than non-CPPF group (p < 0.001).
conclusionsCPPF after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery is safe, effective, feasible, and acceptable. However, standardized randomized clinical trials are necessary to draw definitive conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31325107What 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.