Trial reportScientific reports2026
Cardiac output-guided vs. mean arterial pressure-guided hemodynamic management in craniotomy patients with cardiovascular disease: a randomized trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We tested the primary hypothesis that cardiac output (CO)-guided versus mean arterial pressure (MAP)-guided hemodynamic management reduces the fraction of patients with 90-day Glasgow Outcome scores ≤ 4 (on a 1–5 scale, 5 better) after supratentorial brain tumor resections in adults with cardiovascular disease. 202 adults were randomized to intraoperative hemodynamic management guided by either CO or MAP. In patients assigned to CO guidance, clinicians targeted CO > 4 L/min and > 90% of baseline values using a combination of fluids and vasoactive agents. In patients assigned to MAP guidance, clinicians targeted MAP within ± 20% of baseline and ≥ 65 mmHg. Patients randomized to CO guidance were given more crystalloid and vasoactive support, resulting in significantly higher intraoperative CO and MAP. The proportion of patients with unfavorable 90-day Glasgow Outcome Scores (≤ 4) was non-significantly lower in the CO group (34% vs. 45%, P = 0.112). However, CO-guided management significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative cerebral edema (3% vs. 11%), reduced new neurological events (27% vs. 44%), and shortened hospitalization (median 8 vs. 9 days). While encouraging, findings from our small should be considered exploratory and warrant confirmation in adequately powered trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.