ReviewCardiovascular engineering and technology2026
A Trends Analysis and Scoping Review: Minimal Invasive Extracorporeal Circulation.
Review in Cardiovascular engineering and technology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) was developed as abiocompatible alternative to conventional cardiopulmonary bypass (cCPB), intending to mitigate haemodilution, lessen the systemic inflammatory response, and enhance organ protection. AQ2 Although the evidence base has grown over the past 30 years, there has been no systematic mappingof the evolution of research activity and its results.
methodsThe objectives are to perform a detailed analysis of the temporal, geographical, methodological, and clinical trends within MiECC research published between 1990 and 2025. Studies involving original human clinical data (randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, observational reports, methodological or protocol papers) that reported perioperative or clinical outcomes of MiECC were included. Exclusion criteria comprised reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, letters, guidelines, animal studies, and conference abstracts lacking full text. A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was conducted up to September 2025 to gather evidence. Reference lists of included articles and relevant reviews were also screened. Data were extracted on publication year, country, sample size, study design, surgical procedure, and reported outcomes. Two reviewers independently charted the data, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer.
resultsA total of 151 studies were identified, of which 128 met eligibility criteria. Publication activity increased substantially after 2002 and peaked in 2021, with major contributions from European centres (Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, and the Netherlands). Methodological/protocol papers and Randomize Controlled Trials (RCT) predominated (respectively, n = 37, n = 36). Most studies focused on coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), while valve surgery and paediatric populations were underrepresented. Reported outcomes shifted over time: early studies emphasised transfusion and inflammatory markers, whereas more recent investigations increasingly examined renal function, neurological complications, and survival. Subgroup analyses suggested notable benefits in elderly patients, those with renal dysfunction, and individuals with low ejection fraction (EF).
conclusionMiECC research has progressed from feasibility series to large multicentre trials, generating evidence for reduced transfusion requirements, attenuated inflammatory response, and better organ protection, though no clear mortality benefit has been demonstrated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42350879What 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.