ArticleHeliyon2025
Effects of pulsatile flow on postoperative recovery in adult cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Circulating Endothelial-Associated Biomarker Responses During Beating-Heart Partial Versus Cardioplegic Total Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Juvenile Pigs: An Exploratory Comparative Study.Veterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Review
- Investigation of Inflammatory Reduction During Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Using a Novel Cytokine Adsorption Column: A Rat Model Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The role of pulsatile versus non-pulsatile flow during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is still in debate. This systematic review aimed to comprehensively assess the impact of pulsatile versus non-pulsatile flow on patients' recovery. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials comparing pulsatile and non-pulsatile flow in cardiac surgeries with CPB. Data were analyzed using the random-effects model. Then, sensitive analysis and meta-regression were conducted. Findings: 32 studies including 2568 patients were considered in this meta-analysis. There is no difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups (risk ratio [RR] = 0.74, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.35-1.56, p = 0.43). The ICU stay for the pulsatile group was still significantly shorter than that for the non-pulsatile group (mean difference [MD] = -0.19, 95%CI = -0.35∼-0.03, p = 0.02). Patients in the pulsatile group experienced a shorted stay in hospital (MD = -0.68, 95%CI = -0.97∼-0.39, p < 0.01) and a lower risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) compared with non-pulsatile group (RR = 0.46, 95%CI 0.35-0.60, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference of the postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) between the two groups no matter the roller pump or the intra-aortic balloon pump was used (RR = 0.98, 95%CI = 0.87-1.11, p = 0.78). Conclusions: The use of pulsatile flow during CPB in heart surgery has a protective effect on patient recovery. It can reduce the incidence of AKI, shorten the ICU and hospital stays, but its positive effect on postoperative mortality and POCD is not yet apparent.
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.