SynthesisPloS one2025
The impact of pulsatile vs. non-pulsatile perfusion in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 33 randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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.
- Microcirculation dysfunction and cardioprotection in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: mechanisms, monitoring, and therapeutic strategies.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Glymphatic-meningeal lymphatic system imbalance: a peripheral-to-central inflammatory bridge in perioperative neurocognitive disorders.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulsatile perfusion is a developing technique that attempts to mimic the natural pulsatile flow of blood during cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP). PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to show the effects of pulsatile perfusion in CPB compared to non-pulsatile.
methodsRandomized control trials that evaluated the implementation of pulsatile perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass surgery were identified by a literature search in the following electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Embase) published from inception up to February 2024.
resultsThe search yielded 33 trials of which three studies demonstrated a low risk of bias, 29 studies showed some concerns, and one study presented a high risk of bias overall. The total number of patients was 3174 patients. The analysis showed that pulsatile perfusion led to a significant decrease in creatinine level [MD = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.24, -.04), P < 0.004], lactate level [MD = -8.21, 95% CI (-13.16, -3.25), P < 0.001], hospital stay [MD = -1.38, 95% CI (-2.51, -0.25), P = 0.016], ICU stay [MD = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.82, -0.13), P = 0.007], intubation time [MD = -3.73, 95% CI (-5.42, -2.04), P < 0.001], and increase in creatinine clearance [MD = 10.08, 95% CI (3.36, 16.80), P < 0.003]. However, no significant difference between the two regimens was detected in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), alanine transferase (ALT) level, AST (aspartate transferase) level, Blood urea nitrogen (BUN) level, acute renal failure (ARF), and mortality rates.
conclusionPulsatile perfusion showed some positive effects on creatinine, creatinine clearance, lactate level, hospital stay, ICU stay, and intubation time. However, there was no difference between the two methods on BUN, ALT, AST, eGFR, ARF, and death. Most of the outcomes showed significant heterogeneity, which requires more robust RCTs to be conducted to increase the quality and the certainty of evidence.
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.