SynthesisBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery2026
Levosimendan vs. Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy and safety of intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and levosimendan in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
methodsA systematic search of PubMed®, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted through July 2024. Outcomes analyzed included atrial fibrillation, postoperative mediastinitis, the requirement for inotropic support, in-hospital mortality, postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) stay, postoperative length of stay, ventilation time, and mean arterial pressure (MAP) levels.
resultsThe analysis included nine studies with 681 patients. Levosimendan presented advantage over IABP in CABG patients in terms of postoperative ICU stay, postoperative length of stay, and reduction in MAP levels, with effect sizes: mean difference (MD) = -0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.97 to -0.68, P < 0.00001, MD = -1.14, 95% CI: -1.33 to -0.95, P < 0.00001, and MD = -4.55, 95% CI: -6.14 to -2.96, P < 0.00001, respectively. Levosimendan had an advantage on subgroup analyses in terms of postoperative ICU stay and postoperative length of stay, with effect sizes: MD = -0.83, 95% CI: -0.93 to -0.72, P < 0.00001 and MD = -1.14, 95% CI: -1.28 to -1.01, P < 0.00001, respectively. However, the incidence of postoperative mediastinitis was higher in the levosimendan group (relative risk = 1.45, 95% CI: 0.88 to 2.38), though not statistically significant.
conclusionLevosimendan may improve recovery and hemodynamic outcomes in high-risk CABG patients compared to IABP but may be associated with a higher, though non-significant, risk of mediastinitis. Further high-quality studies are warranted.
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.