ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2025
Electrical impedance tomography in congenital heart disease: advancing non-invasive pulmonary perfusion assessment at bedside.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and Feasibility of Bedside Electrical Impedance Tomography With Hypertonic Saline Contrast for Assessing Pulmonary Perfusion in Mechanically Ventilated Children With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Pilot Study.Critical care explorations · 2026Observational
- Dead space in critical care: a practical approach with clinical scenarios.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- Exploratory Analysis of Electrical Impedance Tomography Features Associated with Spirometric Airflow Limitation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn congenital heart disease (CHD), the evaluation of pulmonary perfusion remains challenging, particularly in pediatric critically ill patients, where anatomical anomalies significantly impact pulmonary blood flow. We aim at demonstrating the reliability and the accuracy to investigate pulmonary perfusion in the presence of CHD by using electrical impedance tomography (EIT), a non-invasive, bedside, real-time, radiation-free imaging technique that assesses lung ventilation and perfusion.
resultsThis methodologies series explores the application of EIT in three pediatric critically ill patients with CHD admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit at Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy: (1) a newborn post-corrective surgery for transposition of the great arteries; (2) an infant post-repair of tetralogy of Fallot with bilateral pulmonary branch stenosis; and (3) an infant with severe hypoxemia following Stage I Norwood-Sano repair. EIT perfusion was performed by injecting a bolus of 0.5 ml/kg of 5% saline through a central venous catheter during an inspiratory hold and was compared to standard imaging techniques that assess pulmonary perfusion. EIT findings were consistent with conventional imaging modalities that are not available at bedside (i.e., computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, angiography) or that do not allow regional assessment of lung perfusion and are operator dependent (i.e., ultrasound), demonstrating the reliability and the accuracy of EIT assessment. EIT provided critical insights into ventilation-perfusion dynamics, allowing to identify perfusion defects and guiding clinical decisions.
conclusionsThis clinical investigation highlights the potential of EIT to improve pulmonary perfusion monitoring and clinical management of complex CHD cases in pediatric critically ill patients. Further research is needed to establish standardized protocols and validate the EIT clinical utility in larger cohorts.
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.