ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Computational numerical analysis of different cannulation methods during cardiopulmonary bypass of type A aortic dissection model based on computational fluid dynamics.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanisms of aortic dissection: From pathological changes to experimental andProgress in materials science · 2025Article
- CarotidWorld journal of cardiology · 2024Article
- Clinical situations for which 3D Printing is considered an appropriate representation or extension of data contained in a medical imaging examination: vascular conditions.3D printing in medicine · 2023Review
- Erratum to computational numerical analysis of different cannulation methods during cardiopulmonary bypass of type A aortic dissection model based on computational fluid dynamics.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the present study was to use a numerical simulation based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to analyze the difference of different cannulation methods on hemodynamics characteristic in a type A aortic dissection (TAAD) model.
methodsA finite-element analysis based on the CFD model of a TAAD patient was used, and axillary artery cannulation (AAC), innominate artery cannulation (IAC), and femoral artery cannulation (FAC) were analyzed under different situations, including a cardiac output (CO) of 2.5 L/min and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) of 2.5 L/min (partial CPB before cross-clamping aorta, defined as condition A), and a CO of 0 L/min and CPB of 5 L/min (aortic cross-clamping phase, defined as condition B). The insertion of an 8-mm cannula into the different models was simulated. Hemodynamic characteristics, including wall shear stress, wall stress, blood flow, and velocity were analyzed.
resultsIn condition A, the total flow of branches of the aortic arch was 2,009.5 mL/min (AAC), 1,855.47 mL/min (IAC), and 1,648.03 mL/min (FAC). All cannulation methods improved left renal blood perfusion. However, in relation to blood flow in the right renal artery, FAC showed the highest blood flow (105 mL/min). The results in condition B were similar to those of condition A. The velocity, shear stress, and stress of entry tear via AAC and IAC decreased in condition B compared with condition A. The velocity, shear stress, stress of tear via AAC was lower than that of IAC.
conclusionsDifferent cannulation modes have an effect on the hemodynamic characteristic of the tear, but this effect is related to different states of CPB. AAC was found to superior to IAC, especially in reducing velocity, stress, and shear stress of site of tear. However, IAC and AAC are more conductive to blood supply than FAC in branch vessels of the aortic arch without being affected by the CPB state.
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.