ReviewWorld journal for pediatric & congenital heart surgery2026
Three Decades of Evidence on Pulsatile Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Pediatrics: No Significant Clinical Benefit.
Review in World journal for pediatric & congenital heart surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundDrawing on more than 30 years of valuable expertise in in-vitro, in-vivo, and clinical trials, we report the key findings of our institutional research on pulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).MethodsA detailed search was performed in the National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine, focusing on the PubMed database. This search combined key terms such as "Pulsatile flow," "Cardiopulmonary Bypass," "Undar A," "Vital Organ Injury," "Clinical outcomes," "Pediatrics," and "Neonates and infants" to find relevant peer-reviewed publications.ResultsA comprehensive review article was crafted by analyzing 88 peer-reviewed studies published between 1996 and 2025. This research provided substantial scientific evidence on optimizing neonatal and pediatric cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) circuitry, focusing not only on pump performance but also on selecting appropriate oxygenators and arterial cannulas for effective pulsatile flow. While significant benefits regarding cerebral hemodynamics were observed in neonatal piglet models using pulsatile flow in conjunction with deep hypothermic circulatory arrest, the results from randomized clinical trials and retrospective studies raised questions regarding its efficacy. Despite some promising indications of improved Apolipoprotein E and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1/tissue plasminogen activator ratios, a rigorous randomized clinical trial involving 159 patients, along with a comprehensive retrospective study of 284 patients at Penn State Health Children's Hospital, demonstrated no significant clinical advantage of pulsatile flow compared with nonpulsatile flow. Importantly, while pulsatile flow did not provide a measurable benefit, it also did not result in any adverse outcomes in our clinical trials.ConclusionsThe existing evidence clearly indicates that pulsatile CPB does not provide significant short-term or long-term benefits for pediatric patients undergoing congenital heart surgery.
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.