Trial reportJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Hemofilters versus hemodialyzers: impacts on cytokine removal during cardiopulmonary bypass in pediatric cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06792565 (Hemofilters vs. Hemodialyzers), which is not on this 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.
Hemofilters vs. Hemodialyzers: Impacts on Cytokine Removal During Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Pediatric Cardiac Surgery
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCongenital heart disease (CHD) remains a leading cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality worldwide. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is crucial for surgical repair but is associated with systemic inflammation and/or end-organ dysfunction. Ultrafiltration (UF) techniques, particularly zero-balance ultrafiltration (Z-BUF), have been developed to mitigate these effects by removing cytokines. Conventional hemofilters are widely used, but in low- and middle-income countries, high-flux hemodialyzers are increasingly substituted, although evidence for their equivalence in pediatric CPB remains scarce.
methodsIn this prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled noninferiority trial, a total of 60 pediatric patients (aged 1-15 years) who underwent elective CPB for congenital heart surgery were enrolled. Thirty patients were assigned to the Medica hemofilter group, and thirty to the Fresenius Helixone
resultsBaseline characteristics and procedural complexity were comparable between cohorts. Following Z-BUF, changes in IL-1β (median difference - 0.223 pg/mL) and IL-6 (0.642 pg/mL) met the predefined noninferiority criteria (p < 0.001 for both). GEE analysis revealed no significant interaction between filter type and cytokine trends. The median hematocrit, lactate levels, MV duration, length of stay in the ICU, and overall hospital stay were also similar between the study arms. Mortality was identical (3.3%) in both arms. Importantly, no cases of acute kidney injury or acute neurological events were observed in either group.
conclusionsCompared with conventional hemofilters, high-flux hemodialyzers are noninferior in controlling intraoperative cytokines during Z-BUF in pediatric CPB and demonstrate comparable clinical safety outcomes. Hemodialyzers appear to be an effective and practical alternative in resource-limited settings. Validation in larger multicenter trials with extended postoperative sampling is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION AND DATE: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06792565) on 22 March 2024.
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.