↓ Skip to main content

Pulmonary artery perfusion versus no perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass for open heart surgery in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pulmonary artery perfusion versus no perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass for open heart surgery in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011098.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katrine B Buggeskov, Lars Grønlykke, Emilie C Risom, Mao Ling Wei, Jørn Wetterslev

Abstract

Available evidence has been inconclusive on whether pulmonary artery perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is associated with decreased or increased mortality, pulmonary events, and serious adverse events (SAEs) after open heart surgery. To our knowledge, no previous systematic reviews have included meta-analyses of these interventions. To assess the benefits and harms of single-shot or continuous pulmonary artery perfusion with blood (oxygenated or deoxygenated) or a preservation solution compared with no perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in terms of mortality, pulmonary events, serious adverse events (SAEs), and increased inflammatory markers for adult surgical patients. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and advanced Google for relevant studies. We handsearched retrieved study reports and scanned citations of included studies and relevant reviews to ensure that no relevant trials were missed. We searched for ongoing trials and unpublished trials in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and at clinicaltrials.gov (4 July 2017). We contacted medicinal firms producing preservation solutions to retrieve additional studies conducted to examine relevant interventions. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared pulmonary artery perfusion versus no perfusion during CPB in adult patients (≧ 18 years). Two independent review authors extracted data, conducted fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) or odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous data, we have presented mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as estimates of the intervention effect. To minimize the risk of systematic error, we assessed risk of bias of included trials. To reduce the risk of random errors caused by sparse data and repetitive updating of cumulative meta-analyses, we applied Trial Sequential Analyses (TSAs). We used GRADE principles to assess the quality of evidence. We included in this review four RCTs (210 participants) reporting relevant outcomes. Investigators randomly assigned participants to pulmonary artery perfusion with blood versus no perfusion during CPB. Only one trial included the pulmonary artery perfusion intervention with a preservation solution; therefore we did not perform meta-analysis. Likewise, only one trial reported patient-specific data for the outcome "pulmonary events"; therefore we have provided no results from meta-analysis. Instead, review authors added two explorative secondary outcomes for this version of the review: the ratio of partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2); and intubation time. Last, review authors found no comparable data for the secondary outcome inflammatory markers.The effect of pulmonary artery perfusion on all-cause mortality was uncertain (Peto OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.43 to 7.40; TSA adjusted CI 0.01 to 493; 4 studies, 210 participants; GRADE: very low quality). Sensitivity analysis of one trial with overall low risk of bias (except for blinding of personnel during the surgical procedure) yielded no evidence of a difference for mortality (Peto OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.27 to 10.15; 1 study, 60 participants). The TSA calculated required information size was not reached and the futility boundaries did not cross; thus this analysis cannot refute a 100% increase in mortality.The effect of pulmonary artery perfusion with blood on SAEs was likewise uncertain (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.89; 3 studies, 180 participants; GRADE: very low quality). Data show an association between pulmonary artery perfusion with blood during CPB and a higher postoperative PaO2/FiO2 ratio (MD 27.80, 95% CI 5.67 to 49.93; 3 studies, 119 participants; TSA adjusted CI 5.67 to 49.93; GRADE: very low quality), although TSA could not confirm or refute a 10% increase in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio, as the required information size was not reached. The effects of pulmonary artery perfusion with blood during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) are uncertain owing to the small numbers of participants included in meta-analyses. Risks of death and serious adverse events may be higher with pulmonary artery perfusion with blood during CPB, and robust evidence for any beneficial effects is lacking. Future randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should provide long-term follow-up and patient stratification by preoperative lung function and other documented risk factors for mortality. One study that is awaiting classification (epub abstract with preliminary results) may change the results of this review when full study details have been published.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 22%
Student > Master 14 16%
Other 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 19%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 25 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,995,815
of 12,923,846 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,953
of 10,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,439
of 345,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#157
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,923,846 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,414 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.