ArticleJTCVS open2021
Conventional versus miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in JTCVS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- National Heart Center Perfusion Guidelines.Saudi medical journal · 2026Guideline
- Association of Anaesthetists guidelines: the use of blood components and their alternatives.Anaesthesia · 2025Guideline
- 2024 EACTS/EACTAIC/EBCP Guidelines on cardiopulmonary bypass in adult cardiac surgery.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Guideline
- Minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation versus conventional cardiopulmonary bypass in cardiac surgery: a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Update on Perioperative Prevention of Cardiac Surgery-Associated Acute Kidney Injury.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Silent Stroke in Adult Cardiac Surgery: Mechanisms, Clinical Impact, and Preventive Strategies.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Pathogenesis of gaseous microemboli in cardiac surgery. a comprehensive overview of deairing procedures, operative interactions and risk factors to mitigate postoperative cerebral disorders.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Between Air and Artery: A History of Cardiopulmonary Bypass and the Rise of Modern Cardiac Surgery.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- 2024 EACTS/EACTAIC Guidelines on patient blood management in adult cardiac surgery in collaboration with EBCP.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025Article
- 2024 EACTS/EACTAIC Guidelines on patient blood management in adult cardiac surgery in collaboration with EBCP.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- 2024 EACTS/EACTAIC/EBCP Guidelines on cardiopulmonary bypass in adult cardiac surgery.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- 2024 EACTS/EACTAIC/EBCP Guidelines on cardiopulmonary bypass in adult cardiac surgery.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025Article
- Benefit of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation on minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through right lateral mini-thoracotomy using femoral cannulation: a propensity-matched analysis.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Enhancing lung transplantation with ECMO: a comprehensive review of mechanisms, outcomes, and future considerations.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2024Review
- Comparison of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation versus standard cardiopulmonary bypass systems on coronary artery bypass surgery.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2024Article
- Alterations to Kidney Physiology during Cardiopulmonary Bypass-A Narrative Review of the Literature and Practical Remarks.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Biochemical Changes in Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Cardiac Surgery: New Insights.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- The effects of perioperative goal-directed therapy on acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery in the early period.Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2023Article
- Effect of different coronary artery revascularization procedures on cognition: A systematic review.Heliyon · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the effects of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) and conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) on morbidity and mortality rates after cardiac surgery. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials from the year 2000 with n > 40 patients were considered. Key search terms included variations of "mini," "cardiopulmonary," "bypass," "extracorporeal," "perfusion," and "circuit." Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcomes were postoperative mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, renal failure, blood loss, and a composite outcome comprised of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and renal failure. Duration of intensive care unit, and hospital stay was also recorded. Results: The 42 studies eligible for this study included a total of 2154 patients who underwent CECC and 2196 patients who underwent MECC. There were no significant differences in any preoperative or demographic characteristics. Compared with CECC, MECC did not reduce the incidence of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and renal failure but did significantly decrease the composite of these outcomes (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.81; Conclusions: MECC demonstrates clinical benefits compared with CECC. Further studies are required to perform a cost-utility analysis and to assess the long-term outcomes of MECC. These should use standardized definitions of endpoints such as mortality and renal failure to reduce inconsistency in outcome reporting.
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.