ArticleJTCVS open2024
Advancing cardiotomy suction practices for coronary surgery via multidisciplinary collaborative learning.
Article in JTCVS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The association between the Distressed Communities Index and failure to rescue after cardiac surgery among Medicare beneficiaries.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- The impact of best practice meetings on clinical outcomes in surgical and oncological care: a scoping review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Interhospital variability in 180-day infections following cardiac surgery.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
- Disparities in 180-day infection rates following coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
- The PediPERForm Learning Network congenital perfusion registry.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2025Article
- Perfusion Measures and Outcomes (PERForm) registry: First annual report.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Professional standards recommend stopping cardiotomy suction at the termination of cardiopulmonary bypass before protamine administration based on perceived safety concerns. This study evaluated a multidisciplinary collaborative quality-improvement intervention promoting this agreed-upon cardiotomy suction practice during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: A statewide intervention (eg, unblinded surgeon and perfusionist feedback, evidence-based lectures, evaluating barriers to change) involved 32 centers participating in the PERForm (ie, Perfusion Measures and Outcomes) Registry to standardize cardiotomy suction practices at cardiopulmonary bypass termination during CABG. Four non-Michigan registry participating centers were not exposed to collaborative learning. Cardiotomy suction practice was defined as the absence of or stopping cardiotomy suction before protamine administration. The practice changes attributed to the intervention, including Michigan and non-Michigan comparisons, were evaluated with the change of time effect modeled using splines. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate the intervention's associated impact (eg, mortality, reoperation, transfusion). Results: Among 10,394 patients undergoing CABG at Michigan centers, 80.7% achieved agreed-upon cardiotomy suction practices. The Michigan centers had nonsignificant changes in agreed-upon cardiotomy suction practices during the preintervention period ( Conclusions: This initiative demonstrates the effectiveness of multidisciplinary collaborative quality improvement in advancing agreed-upon cardiotomy suction practices without negatively impacting clinical outcomes.
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.