ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Effects of two mechanical ventilation strategies during cardiopulmonary bypass on perioperative mechanical power: a prospective observational study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim: Cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is associated with a high rate of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Mechanical power (MP) represents energy per breath multiplied by respiratory rate and conversion factor (0.098), resulting in J/min. This prospective observational study aimed to investigate the effects of two ventilation strategies applied during CPB on MP and their association with PPCs. Methods: In this prospective observational study, ventilation during CPB was managed according to routine clinical practice. Ventilation was discontinued after full CPB flow in Group 1 ( Results: MP, the primary endpoint of the study, did not differ significantly between the two ventilation strategy groups at any measured time point. In a secondary exploratory analysis, MP values were higher at T2 and T3 in patients who developed PPCs (T2: 8.54 ± 0.32 vs. 7.78 ± 0.19 J/min, Conclusion: The two ventilation strategies applied during CPB did not significantly affect the primary outcome, mechanical power. Higher post-CPB MP values were observed in patients who developed PPCs, although this finding was exploratory.
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.