Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40342460›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Hypovolemic Phlebotomy in Hepatic Surgeries: Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analysis of Blood Loss Reduction and Perioperative Outcomes.

João G Oliva, Clara A Prado, Giovanna L de Assis, Guilherme A Figueiredo, Lucas V Ribeiro, Maria A Porto, Mariana F Duarte, Natália N Ribeiro, Victor F Silva, Elaine R Coelho

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

João G OlivaDepartment of Life Sciences, State University of Bahia (UNEB), Salvador, BRA.
Clara A PradoGeneral Surgery, Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública (EBMSP), Salvador, BRA.
Giovanna L de AssisGeneral Surgery, Salvador University (UNIFACS), Salvador, BRA.
Guilherme A FigueiredoGeneral Surgery, Salvador University (UNIFACS), Salvador, BRA.
Lucas V RibeiroGeneral Surgery, Salvador University (UNIFACS), Salvador, BRA.
Maria A PortoGeneral Surgery, Salvador University (UNIFACS), Salvador, BRA.
Mariana F DuarteGeneral Surgery, UnidomPedro Afya, Salvador, BRA.
Natália N RibeiroGeneral Surgery, Escola Bahiana de Medicina e Saúde Pública (EBMSP), Salvador, BRA.
Victor F SilvaGeneral Surgery, Salvador University (UNIFACS), Salvador, BRA.
Elaine R CoelhoDigestive System Surgery, Roberto Santos General Hospital, Salvador, BRA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hepatic resection, especially in major procedures, is associated with high perioperative morbidity, primarily due to the significant risk of intraoperative hemorrhage and the consequent need for blood transfusions, factors that negatively impact clinical outcomes. Strategies to mitigate blood loss include hypovolemic phlebotomy (HP), a technique characterized by the controlled removal of a blood volume before liver transection, without immediate volume replacement, aiming to reduce central venous pressure (CVP) and consequently minimize intraoperative bleeding. Initial evidence suggests that HP may reduce the need for transfusions and improve the preservation of residual liver function, although its efficacy and safety still need to be validated in clinical studies with greater methodological robustness. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of hypovolemic phlebotomy in reducing blood loss during liver resections and improving perioperative outcomes. This meta-analysis was conducted following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). To build the evidence base, a search was conducted in electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, covering publications between 2010 and 2025. The risk of bias assessment was performed using RoB 2 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I for observational studies. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4. For binary variables, risk ratio (RR) was used, while for continuous variables, mean difference (MD) was applied in outcome analysis. Cochran's Q test and Higgins' I² were used to assess heterogeneity among studies. Two RCTs and five observational studies were included, combining 3,369 patients undergoing liver surgery, with 1,759 (52.22%) in the HP group and 1,610 (47.78%) in the control group. HP was associated with a significant reduction in intraoperative blood loss (MD = -52.29; 95% CI -68.81 to -37.77; P < 0.00001). Additionally, there was a decrease in the need for intraoperative transfusion (RR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.19 - 0.38; P < 0.00001) and perioperative transfusion (RR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.28 - 0.66; P = 0.0001). Hospital length of stay showed no significant difference between groups (MD = -0.29; 95% CI -0.79 - 0.21; P = 0.26), nor did the analysis of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3), which also did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference (RR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.72-1.24; P = 0.68). In conclusion, HP demonstrated significant outcomes in liver surgeries, particularly in reducing intraoperative blood loss and the need for intraoperative and postoperative blood transfusions. Furthermore, the technique showed no significant difference in hospital length of stay, incidence of severe complications, or other clinical outcomes. Therefore, larger randomized studies are needed to determine the real impact of HP in different surgical settings.

Indexed as

blood lossblood transfusionhepatectomyliver transplantationphlebotomypostoperative complications

Identifiers

PMID40342460
PMCPMC12060582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.