Trial reportThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2026
Comparison of clinical outcomes between pulsatile and non-pulsatile perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass: A prospective randomized study.
Trial report in The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical benefits of pulsatile perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) remain a subject of debate. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between pulsatile and non-pulsatile perfusion during CPB in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty patients undergoing elective atrial septal defect (ASD) closure or mitral valve replacement (MVR) between July 2019 and July 2020 were randomized to two groups: pulsatile perfusion (PP) group and non-pulsatile perfusion (NP) group. All surgeries were performed by a single surgical team. In the PP group, pulsatile flow was maintained at 60-80 per minute for adults and 80-120 per minute for pediatric patients, pulse pressure was maintained higher than 15 mm Hg, while all other intraoperative management and perioperative protocols were kept consistent between groups. The two groups were compared in terms of length of ICU stay, hospital stay, renal function test, liver function test, and complications.
results77 patients with a mean age of 33.8 ± 15.9 were included in the final analysis. The groups were similar in demographics, clinical and intra-operative variables, except body surface area and baseline creatinine, which were higher in the pulsatile group. Length of ICU stay, hospital stay, liver function tests, renal function tests, and complications were similar across both groups, except for higher urea (p-value 0.049) in the pulsatile group.
conclusionsThis study did not demonstrate significant differences in clinical outcomes between pulsatile and non-pulsatile flow during CPB in elective cardiac surgery. Routine use of pulsatile flow cannot be recommended based on current findings. The study was limited by its restriction to patients undergoing ASD closure or MVR surgery and the dominance of younger patients without major comorbidities.
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.