ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Perfusion Instability During Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: The Utility of a Problem-solving Flowchart.
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeting the remodeled peritoneal ecosystem: a paradigm shift from tumor cells to the microenvironment in gastric cancer peritoneal metastasis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Comparison of core temperature monitoring methods during cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a prospective observational study.European journal of medical research · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimDuring hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), perfusion instability (PI) is defined as the inability to maintain a proper perfusion flow without impairment of the target temperature. The management and resolution of this adverse event is underreported and poorly investigated. The study aimed to evaluate the incidence of PI during closed cytoreductive surgery (CRS)-HIPEC and how a problem-solving approach might limit the effects of this adverse event. PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC at our Institution was performed. PI was defined when the patient's outflow pressure of the circuit was not able to maintain target flow and temperature (1,100 ml/min and 41°C). A step-by-step problem-solving flowchart, which included checking the drain position, proper muscle relaxation, changing the bed position, adjusting the perfusion volume and switching the drain flow switch, was used.
resultsA total of 208 HIPEC procedures were reviewed between May 2018 and January 2023. PI occurred in 21 cases (10.1%). Patients with PI had a significantly longer perfusion time (p<0.001). Although the mean outflow pressure and flow rate were significantly lower in patients with PI (p<0.001), the target temperature was maintained until the end of HIPEC.
conclusionA scheduled problem-solving approach by HIPEC perfusionist team was able to resolve most cases of PI. Further research on perfusion technical details and volume calculation is needed to prevent and limit the effects of this complication.
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.