ArticleRomanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care2020
Role of Anaesthetic Choice in Improving Outcome after Cardiac Surgery.
Article in Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Volatile Anesthesia in Contemporary Cardiac Surgery: Clinical Implications, Organ Protection and Perspectives for Personalized Perioperative Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Effect of sevoflurane on hemodynamic response during cardiopulmonary bypass in cardiac surgery patients: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research · 2025Article
- Volatile Anaesthesia versus Total Intravenous Anaesthesia for Cardiac Surgery-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Analysis of Volatile Anesthetic-Induced Organ Protection in Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Transplantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
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
CLINICAL
backgroundVolatile anaesthetics (VAs) have been shown to protect cardiomyocytes against ischaemia and reperfusion injury in cardiac surgery. CLINICAL PROBLEMS: VAs have been shown in multiple trials and meta-analyses to be associated with better outcomes when compared to intravenous anaesthesia in cardiac surgery. However, recent data from a large randomised controlled trial do not confirm the superiority of VA as compared to total intravenous anaesthesia in this population. REVIEW
objectivesThis mini review presents the VA cardioprotective effects, their clinical use in cardiac surgery and the most recent evidence that compares VA to intravenous anaesthesia for reducing perioperative morbidity. At present, there is no clear superiority of VA over intravenous anaesthesia in improving the outcome after cardiac surgery.
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.