Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41767130›Full record

ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2026

Rethinking Cardiopulmonary Bypass Management in The Digital Health Era.

Youssef El Dsouki, Ignazio Condello, Roberto Lorusso

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Youssef El DsoukiDepartment of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
Ignazio CondelloSchool of Medicine and Surgery, University of Varese Insubria, University of Insubria, Italy.
Roberto LorussoDepartment of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht (CARIM), Maastricht University, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimally invasive and robotic cardiac surgery have been developed to reduce surgical trauma, shorten recovery, and improve cosmetic and functional outcomes. However, these approaches often require longer cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp times than conventional full sternotomy, and CPB duration remains an independent predictor of postoperative morbidity and mortality, particularly in frail patients with reduced physiological reserve. The resulting less invasive access/prolonged extracorporeal support duration paradox poses a major physiological and clinical challenge. Contemporary evidence from randomized and observational studies reports that while minimally invasive and robotic procedures achieve comparable or improved survival and functional recovery, extended CPB and aortic clamp times can amplify the risk of renal dysfunction, neurological events, and systemic inflammation. Advances in digital health are now transforming intraoperative perfusion management: high-frequency data acquisition, automated oxygen delivery and consumption analytics, and real-time artificial intelligence-driven predictive models enable early detection of perfusion imbalance and metabolic distress. Integration of these data streams within interoperable platforms and patient-specific digital twins may allow dynamic modeling of perfusion adequacy and adaptive control of pump flow, temperature, and hemodynamics. By converting CPB duration from a static procedural metric into a digitally monitored, optimizable variable, precision perfusion could reconcile minimal invasiveness with physiological safety. Future research should validate these digital frameworks in multicenter studies and establish standards for transparency, interoperability, and ethical implementation in real-world cardiac surgery.

Identifiers

PMID41767130
PMCPMC12937169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.