Trial reportThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2025
Comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes between hybrid system and MiECC: A prospective pilot study.
Trial report in The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Heparin Resistance in Cardiac Surgery with Cardiopulmonary Bypass: Mechanisms, Clinical Implications, and Evidence-Based Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
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
backgroundMinimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) has been introduced to mitigate the inflammatory response and reduce blood transfusion needs compared to conventional cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) perioperatively. A hybrid system (HS) that merges aspects of both traditional CPB and MiECC aims to optimize patient perioperative outcomes. This study focuses on comparing the postoperative transfusion rates, intensive care unit (ICU) course, and biochemical parameters between the HS and MiECC. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center study was conducted at Koşuyolu High Specialization Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul from February 2024 to June 2024. Forty patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were included, with 20 patients in the HS-group and 20 in the MiECC-group. Data on oxygen delivery management, hemoglobin and platelet values trends, biochemical parameters, the number of red blood cells and platelet units transfused postoperatively, and ICU stay duration were collected.
resultsThe CPB time was not significantly shorter in the HS group compared to the MiECC group (93.35 ± 33.06 min vs. 108.65 ± 30.02 min, p = 0.134). Hemoglobin levels did not differ significantly between the groups preoperatively, perioperatively, or postoperatively at 6, 12, and 24 h no difference in red blood cells unit transfusion. Indexed oxygen delivery did not differ significantly between the HS and MiECC groups (311.60 ± 28.29 mL/min/m
conclusionsThe hybrid system demonstrated comparable results to the MiECC in patients undergoing isolated CABG. No significant differences were observed in CPB time or postoperative blood transfusion requirements. However, the HS group showed favorable biochemical parameters, including significantly lower postoperative lactate levels and troponin levels at 6 h. Indexed oxygen delivery and partial pressure of oxygen were similar between groups, and ICU and hospital stay durations were comparable. These findings suggest that the hybrid system offers outcomes on par with the MiECC approach, with potential benefits in terms of biochemical markers. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to validate these results and explore possible advantages in broader clinical settings.
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.