↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Early Outcomes for Normothermic and Hypothermic Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Children Undergoing Congenital Heart Surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Comparison of Early Outcomes for Normothermic and Hypothermic Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Children Undergoing Congenital Heart Surgery
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fped.2018.00219
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio F. Corno, Claire Bostock, Simon D. Chiles, Joanna Wright, Maria-Teresa Jn Tala, Branko Mimic, Mirjana Cvetkovic

Abstract

Objective: Comparison of early outcomes of normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass (N-CPB, ≥35°C) with hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass (H-CPB, 28-34°C) for congenital heart defects. Methods: Data from 99 patients <2 years operated with N-CPB (n = 48) or H-CPB (n = 51) were retrospectively reviewed: aortic X-clamping and CPB duration, vasoactive inotropic score (VIS), arterial lactate, pH and base excess, urine output, extubation, PICU stay, transfusion requirements, chest drain losses, costs of transfusions, and costs of PICU stay. Results: The two groups were homogeneous for diagnosis, risk factors, surgery and demographic variables: N-CPB age 7.7 ± 6.1 months, weight 6.2 ± 2.4 kg, and H-CPB age 6.6 ± 6.5 months, weight 6.1 ± 2.4 kg. There were no hospital deaths in either group. VIS in N-CPB was lower than H-CPB on PICU arrival (9.7 ± 5.9 vs. 13.4 ± 7.9, P < 0.005), after 4 h (7.0 ± 5.2 vs. 11.1 ± 7.3, P < 0.001) and 24 h (2.8 ± 3.6 vs. 5.6 ± 5.6, P < 0.003); arterial pH was better at PICU arrival (7.33 ± 0.09 vs. 7.30 ± 0.09, P = 0.046) after 4 h (7.35 ± 0.07 vs. 7.32 ± 0.07, P = 0.022) and after 24 h (7.37 ± 0.05 vs. 7.35 ± 0.05, P = 0.01). Extubation was earlier in N-CPB than in H-CPB (22 ± 27 vs. 48 ± 57 h, P = 0.003) as PICU discharge (61 ± 46 h vs. 87 ± 69 h, P = 0.021). Transfusion requirements in operating room were lower in N-CPB vs. H-CPB for RBC, FFP, cryoprecipitate, and platelets, while during the first 24 h in PICU were lower only for cryoprecipitate and platelets. Chest drain losses (mL/kg) on PICU arrival, after 4 and 24 h were lower with N-CPB vs. H-CPB (respectively 1.5 ± 1.4 vs. 2.5 ± 2.7, P = 0.013, 7.8 ± 6.0 vs. 10.9 ± 8.7, P = 0.025, and 23.0 ± 12.0 vs. 27.9 ± 15.2, P = 0.043). Tranexamic acid infusion was required in 7/48 (14.6%) patients with N-CPB vs. 18/51(= 35.3%) in H-CPB (P = 0.009). The average total costs/patient of blood and blood products (RBC, FFP, cryoprecipitate, platelets) were lower in N-CPB vs. H-CPB for both the first 24 h after surgery (£204 ± 169 vs. £306 ± 254, P = 0.011) as well as during the total duration of PICU stay (£239 ± 193 vs. £427 ± 337, P = 0.001). The average cost/patient/day of stay in PICU was lower in N-CPB than in H-CPB (£4,067 ± 3,067 vs. £5,800 ± 4,600, P = 0.021). Conclusions: N-CPB may reduce inotropic and respiratory support, shorten PICU stay, and decrease peri-operative transfusion requirements, with subsequent costs reduction, compared to H-CPB. Future studies are needed to validate and support wider use of N-CPB.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 41%
Chemistry 3 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,647,094
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#3,435
of 6,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,069
of 333,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#57
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 333,251 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.