ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2024
Effects of Pulsatile and Non-Pulsatile Cardiopulmonary Bypass Techniques in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgeries on Cerebral Perfusion.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- An effective case of pulsatile flow for cerebral malperfusion of stanford type A aortic dissection.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2025Article
- Effects of Midazolam and Dexmedetomidine on Cognitive Dysfunction Following Open-Heart Surgery: A Comprehensive Review.Brain and behavior · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We aimed to evaluate the effects of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) machines used in coronary artery bypass grafting surgeries on cerebral perfusion by performing cerebral oximetry monitoring [near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS)], S100-β protein measurements, and neurocognitive function assessment tests using both pulsatile and non-pulsatile modes. Methods: A total of 44 patients, 22 non-pulsatile (Group NP) and 22 pulsatile (Group P), were included in the study. Hemodynamic parameters, arterial blood gas values, NIRS values and blood S100β protein levels were analyzed at five points: pre-induction (T1), initiation of CPB (T2), termination of CPB (T3), end of surgery (T4), and postoperative 24 h (T5). Two different neuropsychological tests were administered to patients in the preoperative and postoperative periods. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups for demographic characteristics such as age, gender, body mass index, aortic cross-clamping, CPB, and operation durations. The mean arterial blood pressure and PaO Conclusion: Despite no difference between the two groups for neurocognitive function tests, we believe that pulsatile perfusion may be more beneficial for cerebral perfusion when S100β protein and NIRS values are considered. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the benefits of the pulsatile technique for cerebral perfusion.
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.