Observational studyInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
Clinical assessment of cannula performance during adult minimally invasive valve surgery using predictive mathematical models.
Observational study in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPeripheral cannula selection in minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) is crucial, as venous drainage limitations during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) can impair end-organ perfusion and overall outcomes. This study evaluates the in vivo venous drainage efficiency of different peripheral venous cannulas for adult MICS by applying dynamic similarity (DS) prediction formulas.
methodsThis observational study included 75 adult MICS patients with use of single peripheral venous cannulation from January 2017 to June 2023. The analysis included cannulas Bio-Medicus Multi XL Life Support, Nextgen Bicaval and Smart cannulas. Cannula performance was assessed by comparing predicted pressures with in vivo measurements.
resultsA total of 278, 314 and 264 measurements were recorded for the Multi, Next and Smart cannulas, respectively. No significant demographic differences were found between groups. Lin's concordance correlation coefficients for agreement between predicted and measured pressures were >0.95 for the Multi and Next cannulas but substantially lower for the Smart cannula (0.80). Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias of -1.09 mmHg for the Multi, -0.15 mmHg for the Next and 3.68 mmHg for the Smart cannula, with the latter exceeding the ±12.5 mmHg limits of agreement.
conclusionsDS-based predictions revealed significant performance variability among peripheral venous cannula types. The in vivo performance was adequately predicted for the Multi and Next cannulas but not for the Smart cannula, underscoring the need for real-life evaluations and performance monitoring during CPB. Incorporating dynamic performance assessments into clinical decision-making might optimize venous drainage and patient 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.