ArticleArchives of academic emergency medicine2026
Challenging Dilemma regarding Cardiac Advanced Life Support in Patients with Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery: A Letter to Editor.
Article in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac Advanced Life Support (CALS) differs from conventional Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) in utilizing targeted resuscitation protocols designed explicitly for post-cardiac surgery patients. The hallmark of CALS is the performance of prompt re-sternotomy and internal cardiac massage within 5 minutes of cardiac arrest if the patient is unresponsive to external chest compressions and rapid defibrillation. The standardized algorithms for ACLS, fundamental to managing cardiac arrest, present a significant and potentially dangerous dilemma when applied to patients who have undergone minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS). While MICS offers benefits like reduced trauma and faster recovery, it creates a unique physiological landscape that conflicts with conventional resuscitation. This letter highlights the urgent need to re-evaluate the ACLS protocol for this growing patient population. We advocate for the immediate development of a specialized MICS-specific resuscitation guideline that moves beyond a one-size-fits-all approach to in-hospital cardiac arrest.
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.