ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Optimization of carbon dioxide insufflation strategies in minimally invasive cardiac surgery: the efficacy of continuous insufflation protocols with left ventricular venting.
Article in European journal of medical research, 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.
- Beating-heart mitral valve replacement assisted by rapid ventricular pacing after Bentall procedure: a case report.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAlthough CO₂ insufflation play an established role in open-heart surgery, its optimal application in minimally invasive cardiac procedures remains unclear. This study systematically compared continuous versus single CO₂ insufflation protocols during minimally invasive modified morrow procedures, and assessed the influence of left heart venting modality on microbubble clearance efficacy.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 351 patients undergoing minimally invasive modified morrow procedures (2023-2024). Participants were stratified into two groups: Continuous Insufflation Group (CIG, n = 228; 5 L/min CO₂ throughout cardiopulmonary bypass [CPB]) and Single Insufflation Group (SIG, n = 123; 5 L/min CO₂ 5-min pre-aortotomy closure to 5-min post-unclamping). Microbubble dynamics were quantitatively classified into four grades (0-III) using standardized intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of microbubble formation and clinical outcomes.
resultsThe CIG exhibited a statistically significant reduction in overall microbubble incidence compared to SIG (13.60% vs. 36.59%, p < 0.05), particularly in attenuating Grade I-II microbubbles (p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified CO₂ insufflation strategy (odds ratio [OR] = 3.694, p = 0.005), left heart venting modality (OR = 32.527, p < 0.001), and CPB time (OR = 1.017, p = 0.017) as independent predictors. Importantly, the combination of continuous insufflation with left ventricular venting was associated with a 93.3% reduction in Grade I microbubbles (OR = 0.067, p = 0.001). Clinically, the CIG exhibited a lower incidence of perioperative arrhythmias (24.12% vs. 36.59%, p = 0.009), despite slightly longer hospitalization (9.80 ± 4.42d vs. 8.88 ± 3.26d, p < 0.05). Neurological outcomes (4.82% vs. 3.25%, p = 0.483) and ICU stay duration (1.59 ± 1.69d vs. 1.74 ± 2.14d, p = 0.215) were comparable between groups.
conclusionIn the context of the minimally invasive modified morrow procedure, continuous CO₂ insufflation significantly reduces microbubble formation and perioperative arrhythmias. Left ventricular venting modality is a key determinant of de-airing efficacy. Protocol optimization should prioritize continuous CO₂ insufflation in combination with left ventricular venting systems to enhance procedural safety.
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.