ReviewPerfusion2022
In search of optimal cardioplegia for minimally invasive valve surgery.
Review in Perfusion, 2022. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Potential Role of MicroRNAs as Cardioprotective Agents During Cardioplegia: A Preliminary Qualitative Systematic Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- The cardioprotective effects of HTK solution and conventional blood cardioplegia in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing valvular replacement and Cox maze III procedure.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Fast-track extubation in minimally invasive cardiac surgery: limits and lessons of a 4-year single-center analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Optimizing Myocardial Protection in Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgeries: A Network Comparison of Del Nido, Histidine-Tryptophan-Ketoglutarate, and Blood Cardioplegia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardioplegic solutions are used in cardiac surgery to achieve controlled cardiac arrest during operations, making surgery safer. Cardioplegia can either be blood or crystalloid based, with perceived pros and cons of each type. Whilst it is known that cardioplegia causes cardiac arrest, there is debate over which cardioplegic solution provides the highest degree of myocardial protection during arrest. Myocardial damage is measured post-operatively by biomarkers such as serum TnT, TnI or CK-MB. It is known that the outcomes of minimally invasive valve surgery are comparable to full sternotomy valve operations. Despite there being a wide diversity in use of different cardioplegic solutions across the world, this comprehensive literature review found no superiority of one cardioplegic solution over the other for myocardial protection during minimally invasive valve procedures.
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.