ArticleActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2025
Clinical practice and outcomes in European pediatric cardiac anesthesia: A secondary analysis of the APRICOT and NECTARINE studies.
Article in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2025. 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.
- iCardio: Applying Business Intelligence to Assess Regional Disparity in Cardiovascular Care with Real-World Data.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2026Article
- Clinical practice and outcomes in European pediatric cardiac anesthesia: A secondary analysis of the APRICOT and NECTARINE studies.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite advancements in surgical techniques and perioperative care, pediatric cardiac patients remain at an increased risk of adverse events. The APRICOT (2017) study aimed to establish the incidence of severe critical events in children undergoing anesthesia in Europe, while the NECTARINE (2021) study aimed to assess anesthesia practices and outcomes in neonates and infants under 60 weeks postconceptual age. Our goal was to conduct a secondary analysis of the cardiac cohorts from these two studies to determine mortality rates and other outcomes after cardiac procedures at 30 and 90 days, identify factors influencing mortality, illustrate clinical practices, and assess the methodology of the two studies.
methodsSub-analysis of the data from APRICOT and NECTARINE. Data representativity was assessed through a systematic categorization process. European countries were divided into four income groups based on their gross national income per capita. Subsequently, the total number of patients across all four income groups was calculated for both the Apricot and Nectarine studies, and then the specific contribution of each income group to the total population of each study was determined.
resultsThis analysis comprised 1016 cases (Apricot, n = 476 and Nectarine, n = 540). There was a considerable variability in clinical practice in Europe. The overall mortality rates were 0.84% (APRICOT) and 8.1% (NECTARINE). In both cohorts, substantial mortality was observed among low-age and low-weight infants. Stratifying the participating countries by income illustrated that the data originated from highest-income and upper-middle-income European countries and were not representative of low-income and middle-income countries.
conclusionsIn this secondary analysis of the APRICOT and NECTARINE studies, we found that fatal cases primarily occurred in low-age and low-weight neonates and infants. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This secondary analysis of the APRICOT and NECTARINE studies focused on pediatric cardiac surgical cases. Outcomes differed according to weight and age of the children, where mortality risk was higher for very young and low-weight children.
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.