ArticleAdvanced biomedical research2025
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Two Different Cardioplegic Solutions in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery; A randomize clinical trial.
Article in Advanced biomedical research, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Usually, manual cardioplegic solutions with low magnesium and lidocaine, and corporate solutions with high magnesium and procaine, are the only common solutions used to induce cardiac arrest during coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. This study compares the clinical outcomes of these two solutions. Materials and Methods: This randomized, single-blind clinical trial was conducted on 70 patients undergoing CABG at Chamran Hospital in Isfahan. In the first group, a manual cardioplegic solution was used. In the second group, a corporate cardioplegic solution (Blood; Shahid Ghazi Company) was used. Subsequently, inflammatory factors, complications, and outcomes were evaluated in the two groups. Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of arrhythmia after declamping, the total inotropic support required within 24 h post-surgery, changes in electrolytes, or markers of myocardial injury ( Conclusion: This study found no difference in patient outcomes between the corporate cardioplegic solution (high magnesium/procaine) and the manual solution (lower magnesium/lidocaine). Therefore, the manual solution can be used in some cases, as its lower magnesium level avoids hypermagnesemia and does not cause cardiac muscle weakness during mechanical activities.
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.