ArticleWorld journal of cardiology2026
Comparison of 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4
Article in World journal of cardiology, 2026. 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.
- Rethinking flow: the paradox of renoprotection without increased renal blood flow in cardiopulmonary bypass.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe choice of priming and volume replacement fluids during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in cardiac surgery impacts hemodynamic stability, coagulation, renal function, and patient outcomes. Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 and human albumin are commonly used colloids, but their relative safety and efficacy remain debated.
aimTo compare the outcomes of 6% HES 130/0.4
methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, and grey literature sources up to August 2025. Randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies comparing 6% HES 130/0.4 with 5% albumin in patients who underwent cardiac surgery were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment followed PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4, applying random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed with
resultsTwelve studies involving 908 patients (455 in the HES group, 453 in the albumin group) were included. No significant differences were observed between the HES and albumin groups for postoperative blood loss [mean difference = 42.4 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI): -90.0 to 174.9;
conclusionThe 6% HES 130/0.4 and 5% albumin exhibit similar efficacy for volume management in cardiac surgery with CPB; however, HES is associated with a higher risk of AKI.
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.