Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Impact of nitric oxide via cardiopulmonary bypass on pediatric heart surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery volume 19, Article number: 461 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

The impact of nitric oxide (NO) administered via cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) on pediatric heart surgery remains controversial. The objective of this study is to conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the impact of NO administered via CPB on pediatric heart surgery.

Methods

This study searched 7 electronic databases to identify Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on the impact of NO administration during CPB on postoperative outcomes in pediatric heart surgery. The searched databases included Embase, Medline (though PubMed), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Wan Fang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to November 2, 2022. The included RCTs compared NO administration during CPB with standard CPB procedures or placebo gas treatment in pediatric heart surgery. fixed-effects models and/or random-effects models were used to estimate the effect size with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity among studies was indicated by p-values and I2. All analyses were performed using Review Manager software (version 5.4) in this study.

Results

A total of 6 RCTs including 1,739 children were identified in this study. The primary outcome was duration of postoperative mechanical ventilation, with the length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay as the second outcomes. Through a pooled analysis, we found that exogenous NO administered via CPB for pediatric heart surgery could not shorten the duration of postoperative mechanical ventilation when compared with the control group (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.07, CI [–0.16, 0.02], I2 = 45%, P = 0.15). Additionally, there were also no difference between the two groups in terms of length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -0.29, CI [–1.03, 0.46], I2 = 32%, P = 0.45) and length of ICU stay (MD -0.22, CI [–0.49 to 0.05], I2 = 72%, P = 0.10).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis showed that exogenous NO administration via CBP had no benefits on the duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of postoperative hospital, and ICU stay after pediatric heart surgery.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is one of the most common congenital birth defects, affecting approximately 1per100 live births [1]. Each year, around 4,300 newborns in the United States with CHD require surgery in the first few days of their life [2]. Most heart surgeries require cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), which can probably triggers endothelial barrier function, inflammatory response, and activation of coagulation system [3]. Consequently, 40% of these surgeries can result in myocardial necrosis and ultimately lead to low cardiac output syndrome [4]. CPB is also associated with damage to the central nervous system, lungs, kidneys, gastrointestinal system [5]. Therefore, children are at higher risk for multisystem organ dysfunction after undergoing congenital heart surgery [6, 7].

NO is an important vasoactive molecule in the body. Studies have shown that it can relax pericytes and vascular smooth muscle cells by binding to the cytosolic guanylate cyclase, leading to a decrease in intracellular Ca2+ [8]. NO helps maintain cardiovascular system homeostasis through vascular dilatation, anti-aggregation and anti-adhesion effects [9]. It has also been demonstrated to protect the myocardium by alleviating ischemia-reperfusion injury duringCPB [10]. However, CPB can increase level of free hemoglobin, which removes substantial amounts of NO from the body [11]. Deficiency in endogenous NO may result in organ damage, suggesting that supplementation with exogenous NO during CPB could reduce the incidence of morbidity and mortality after heart surgery [12, 13]. Several studies have reported the benefits of delivering exogenous NO directly into the CPB for adult undergoing heart surgery [14, 15]. Additionally, Checchia et al. found that infants undergoing congenital heart surgery who were treated with NO showed improvement in important clinical outcomes such as postoperative duration mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay [16]. In the contrast, a recent clinical study reported that NO delivery via CPB circuits had no significant impact on postoperative recovery, leading them to discourage the use of NO delivery into an CPB oxygenator during pediatric heart surgery [17].

Overall, we believe that a pooled analysis of the effects of NO supplementation via CPB on the postoperative recovery of infants undergoing heart surgery is of great clinical significance. This study aims to perform a systematic review and pooled analysis on the latest updated data to assess the impact of NO via CPB on pediatric heart surgery.

Methods

Guidance and protocol

This meta-analysis was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement [18]. Protocol of this study has been registered on the PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42022376413) on November 27, 2022. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the local institutional review board.

Search strategy

A systematic and comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases, including Embase, Medline (through PubMed), the Cochrane library, Web of Science, Wan Fang database, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), to select relevant literature from inception to November2, 2022. Clinical trials were identified by searching ClinicalTrials.gov. The search used a combination of free terms and Mesh terms, including “Nitric Oxide” and “Cardiopulmonary Bypass” and “heart surgery”. No language restrictions were applied. Two independent authors conducted the literature search and screening. Any disagreements between authors were resolved through consultation with a third author until a consensus was reached.

Inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria

RCTs with a published full-text article were included if they met the following criteria: (1) RCTs investigating the impact of NO administration during CPB on postoperative outcomes in pediatric heart surgery; (2) Setting of CPB for heart surgery in children (< 14 years old); (3) Patients receiving only NO during CPB compared to those receiving placebo or standard care without additional treatments; (4) Reporting relevant outcomes such as postoperative duration of mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, and length of ICU stay.

Exclusion criteria

Studies were excluded if they: (1) Involved inhalation NO before or after CPB; (2) Multiple duplicate publications of the same data; (3) Were animal experiment.

Data extraction

Qiuping Zhang and Yuan Lin independently conducted data extraction thoroughly reviewing the full text. Any disagreements were resolved by through consultation with a third investigator. The extracted data included the author’s name, publication year, country, the population size, sex, comparator, the protocol of NO administration, the setting for NO Initiation, and key postoperative outcome.

Risk of bias assessment

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias in each study using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool [19]. The risk of bias based on selection bias, performance bias, detection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias, and other bias. If a study did not explicitly state a specific bias, despite efforts to contact the authors for clarification, the item was classified as having an “unclear” risk.

Statistical analysis

Review Manager 5.4 was utilized for all the statistical analysis [20]. Given that indicators in this study were all continuous variables with varying units, we employed the mean difference (MD) / standardized mean difference (SMD) for analyzing outcomes, providing a 95% confidence interval (CI). Standard deviation (SD) were calculated using sample size and mean values in cases where SD was not provided. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. For analyses without significant heterogeneity (I2 < 50%), a fixed-effects model was utilized; for those with significant heterogeneity(I2 ≥ 50%), a random-effects model was applied [21]. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Literature characteristics

According to the search strategy, a total of 1971 potentially relevant studies were identified from the electronic database. After eliminating duplicates, irrelevant references, and unqualified references, six studies involving 1739 children were included in the final analysis (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of selection of studies included in the meta-analysis

Full size image

The baseline characteristic of all included studies are summarized in Table 1. All studies were prospective and randomized in design, conducted between 2013 and 2022. The patients in our study were children whose age under 14 years old. No statistically significant differences were found in the baseline characteristics between the experimental and the control groups. Postoperative mechanical ventilation duration after CPB was reported in five studies, hospital stay after CPB was included in six studies, and ICU stay length after CPB in four studies.

Table 1 Baseline characteristic of all the included studies
Full size table

Bias assessment

All included studies were randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane risk of bias analysis for these studies is presented in Fig. 2, showing an insignificant risk of bias across all studies included in this meta-analysis.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias summary table; Abbreviation Yellow (?): unclear risk of bias; Green (+): low risk of bias

Full size image

Nitric oxide

In all studies, NO was administered during CPB in the operating room. However, NO was not applied into the CPB oxygenator in the standard care or placebo group.

Primary outcome and other outcomes

Duration of mechanical ventilation

As depicted in Fig. 3, six studies including 1739 children (873 in the control group and 866 in the NO group) were included in the analysis of postoperative mechanical ventilation duration. The Q-statistic yielded a p-value of 0.15 and the I2-statistic was 45%, indicating no significant heterogeneity among studies. Therefore, a fixed-effects model was applied to pooled analysis. Ultimately, our analysis suggests that NO does not reduce the duration of postoperative mechanical ventilation (SMD − 0.07, CI [–0.16, 0.02], I2 = 45%, z = 1.45, P = 0.15).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot for duration of mechanical ventilation mean difference between control group and nitric oxide group. Abbreviation IV: inverse variance; CI: confidence interval; Std. Mean Difference: Standard Mean Difference

Full size image

Length of Hospital stay

As illustrated in Fig. 4, six studies including 1739 children (873 in the control group and 866 in the NO group) investigated the length of hospital stay. Given an I2 < 50%, a fixed-effects model was employed. The pooled analysis indicates that the use of NO in SPB did not significantly affect the length of hospital stay (MD -0.29, CI [–1.03, 0.46], I2 = 32%, z = 0.76, P = 0.45).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot for length of hospital stay mean difference between control group and nitric oxide group. Abbreviation IV: inverse variance; CI: confidence interval

Full size image

Length of ICU stay

As shown in Fig. 5, four studies including 1675 children (839 in the control group and 836 in the NO group) investigated postoperative length of ICU stay. The I2-statistic showed a significant heterogeneity of 65%, leading us to use a random-effects model. However, due to the limited number of studies included, Egger’s regression could not be conducted to assess publication bias. The analysis revealed no significant difference in the postoperative length of ICU stay between two groups (SMD − 0.22, CI [–0.49, 0.05], I2 = 65%, z = 1.63, P = 0.10).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot for length of intensive care unit stay mean difference between control group and nitric oxide group. Abbreviation IV: inverse variance; CI: confidence interval; Std. Mean Difference: Standard Mean Difference

Full size image

Discussion

The impact of inhaled NO during heart surgery for CHD on perioperative outcomes has been widely investigated. However, the clinical significance of NO administration via CPB in congenital pediatric heart surgery remains controversial. This meta-analysis includes six studies with a total of 1739 children, primarily infants under one year of age. The primary findings revealed that NO administered via CPB had no benefits on the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of postoperative hospital stay and ICU stay.

Salvatore et al. found, through pooled analysis, that perioperative inhaled NO has little effect on patients with pulmonary hypertension undergoing heart surgery [22]. Their review was very comprehensive, but it did not emphasize the impact of delivering NO through CPB on heart surgery. Joseph Mc Loughlin et al. conducted the first systematic review on the impact of exogenous NO via CPB on patients undergoing heart surgery [23]. Despite including both adults and children in their analysis, only three studies were eligible, each with a small sample size. Their study also indicated no significant differences in the duration of mechanical ventilation between control group and NO group after heart surgery. Consistent with Joseph’s results, we found that NO had no benefits on the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of postoperative hospital stay and ICU stay after heart surgery, despite differences in the number of included articles and study populations compared to their studies.

NO synthesized by the vascular endothelium can inhibit neutrophil-endothelial adhesion and platelet activation. The mechanism of NO in treating pulmonary hypertension in neonates is well established [24]. Recently, NO has been found to play other significant roles in clinical practice, such as suppressing the systemic inflammatory response (SIR) and reducing ischemia-reperfusion injury of vital organs [25, 26]. It has been reported that CPB can trigger the release of a series of proinflammatory cytokines and Lymphocyte activation [27]. Anesthetic strategies and steroid administration are common methods to mitigate CPB-induced trauma [28]. Compared with the above methods, adding NO to CPB is a safe and convenient strategy. Consequently, increasing numbers of clinical studies more and more clinical studies are investigating the potential benefits of adding NO to CPB for postoperative recovery.

In the past decade, numerous studies had reported that adding NO to the CPB circle can reduce heart and lung injuries [29, 30]. Additionally, it is well known that inhaled NO can alleviate pulmonary arterial hypertension during cardiac surgery in infants [31,32,33]. However, RCTs on the effects of adding NO to the CPB circuit during heart surgery for children are rare. The first RCT reported that NO administered via CPB during infant heart surgery significantly shortened length of ICU stay and the duration of postoperative mechanical ventilation [16]. Subsequent studies have investigated the application of NO via CPB in cardiac surgery for younger children. Schlapbach et al. found that NO administered via CPB had little or no influence on the number of ventilator-free within 30 days and other outcomes [17]. Kolcz et al. found that NO had a significant effect on inflammatory factors and indicators of lung and myocardial injury [25]. Niebler et al. concluded that NO had no impact on number or activation of platelet in infants undergoing heart surgery and found no differences in adverse events between the study and control groups [34]. James et al. focused on the influence of NO via CPB on low cardiac output syndrome [35]. Checchia et al. found that adding NO to the CPB could protect myocardial and reduced length of ICU stay. The small sample sizes may have contributed to a larger confidence interval in the pooled analysis of postoperative length of ICU stay [16]. Elzein et al. observed that NO had no impact on postoperative recovery despite its ability to protect the myocardium [2]. This meta-analysis provided a comprehensive analysis of studies that had common indicators and were controversial. Mechanical ventilation was the most effective way to provide respiratory support for infants undergoing heart surgery. Duration of postoperative mechanical ventilation was an important indicator to reflect the recovery of respiratory function after surgery [36]. However, we found that administration of NO during CPB did not reduce the duration of postoperative mechanical ventilation or improve the prognosis. In addition, NO via CPB also had no benefits on the length of postoperative hospital and ICU stay. The recovery after pediatric heart surgery involved multiple factors, including the type of surgery, individual patient differences, postoperative management strategies, and more [37,38,39]. The effects of nitric oxide might have been obscured by these complex factors, making it difficult for its impact to be significant on its own, which might explain our results. Certainly, more clinical and basic research was needed to further validate the role of NO in pediatric cardiac surgery, in order to better guide clinical practice.

This meta-analysis had several limitations. Firstly, there is a significant disparity in the number of patients among the enrolled studies, with small sample sizes potentially affecting the reliability of the results. Secondly, for data not normally distributed, results were presented as median and interquartile range. Converting these medians into means and standard deviations may introduce errors. Thirdly, the limited number of included studies in this research prevented subgroup analyses (such as grouping by age or the amount of NO administration) and testing for publication bias, which might impact the reliability of the findings. Therefore, further studies are needed to validate our results.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis shows that NO has no effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital stay, or ICU stay after heart surgery with CPB. Given the heterogeneity and limitations of the included studies, along with the variation in sample sizes, the overall quality of the evidence may be suboptimal. Further research is needed to explore the mode and timing of NO in pediatric heart surgery.

Data availability

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

References

  1. Triedman JK, Newburger JW. Trends in congenital heart disease: the Next Decade. Circulation. 2016;133:2716–33. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.023544.

  2. Elzein C, Urbas C, Hughes B, Li Y, Lefaiver C, Ilbawi M et al. Efficacy of Nitric Oxide Administration in attenuating Ischemia/Reperf usion Injury during neonatal cardiopulmonary bypass. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. 2020;11(4):417–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/2150135120911034.

  3. Evora PRB, Tenório DF, Braile DM. Is the cardiopulmonary bypass systemic inflammatory response overestim ated? Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;33:I-III. https://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2018-0605.

  4. Domanski MJ, Mahaffey K, Hasselblad V, Brener SJ, Smith PK, Hillis G et al. Association of myocardial enzyme elevation and survival following coro nary artery bypass graft surgery. JAMA. 2011;305:585–91. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.99.

  5. Bronicki RA, Hall M. Cardiopulmonary Bypass-Induced Inflammatory response: pathophysiology and treatment. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2016;17:S272–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/PCC.0000000000000759.

  6. Tárnok A, Schneider P. Pediatric cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: pathways contri buting to transient systemic immune suppression. Shock. 2001;16(Suppl 1):24–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/00024382-200116001-00006.

  7. Duval EL, Kavelaars A, Veenhuizen L, van Vught AJ, van de Wal HJ, Heijnen CJ. Pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokine patterns during and after cardiac surgery in young children. Eur J Pediatr. 1999;158:387–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004310051098.

  8. Lundberg JO, Gladwin MT, Weitzberg E. Strategies to increase nitric oxide signalling in cardiovascular disea se. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14:623–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd4623.

  9. Bhatraju P, Crawford J, Hall M, Lang JD. Jr. Inhaled nitric oxide: current clinical concepts. Nitric Oxide. 2015;50:114–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.niox.2015.08.007.

  10. Hataishi R, Rodrigues AC, Neilan TG, Morgan JG, Buys E, Shiva S et al. Inhaled nitric oxide decreases infarction size and improves left ventr icular function in a murine model of myocardial ischemia-reperfusion i njury. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2006;291:H379–84. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.01172.2005.

  11. Bronson SL, Riley JB, Blessing JP, Ereth MH, Dearani JA. Prescriptive patient extracorporeal circuit and oxygenator sizing redu ces hemodilution and allogeneic blood product transfusion during adult cardiac surgery. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2013;45:167–72.

  12. Lee A, Butt W. Nitric oxide: a new role in intensive care. Crit Care Resusc. 2020;22:72–9. https://doi.org/10.51893/2020.1.sr1.

  13. Wang W, Lee Y, Lee CH. Effects of nitric oxide on stem cell therapy. Biotechnol Adv. 2015;33:1685–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2015.09.004.

  14. Gianetti J, Del Sarto P, Bevilacqua S, Vassalle C, De Filippis R, Kacila M et al. Supplemental nitric oxide and its effect on myocardial injury and func tion in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with extracorporeal circul ation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;127:44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2002.08.001.

  15. Zhang WX, Gong GF, Chen SX. Protective effects of low dose nitric oxide inhalation on lung ischemi a/reperfusion injury during cardiopulmonary bypass surgery. Hunan Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2000;25:483–6.

  16. Checchia PA, Bronicki RA, Muenzer JT, Dixon D, Raithel S, Gandhi SK et al. Nitric oxide delivery during cardiopulmonary bypass reduces postoperat ive morbidity in children–a randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;146:530–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.09.100.

  17. Schlapbach LJ, Gibbons KS, Horton SB, Johnson K, Long DA, Buckley DHF et al. Effect of nitric oxide via Cardiopulmonary Bypass on Ventilator-Free D ays in Young Children undergoing congenital heart disease surgery: the NITRIC Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2022;328:38–47. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.9376.

  18. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systemat ic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.

  19. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in random ised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928.

  20. Schmidt L, Shokraneh F, Steinhausen K, Adams CE. Introducing RAPTOR: RevMan Parsing Tool for reviewers. Syst Rev. 2019;8:151. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1070-0.

  21. Dettori JR, Norvell DC, Chapman JR. Fixed-effect vs Random-effects models for Meta-Analysis: 3 points to C onsider. Global Spine J. 2022;12:1624–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682221110527.

  22. Sardo S, Osawa EA, Finco G, Gomes Galas FRB, de Almeida JP, Cutuli SL et al. Nitric oxide in cardiac surgery: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Control led trials. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018;32:2512–9. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2018.02.003.

  23. Loughlin JM, Browne L, Hinchion J. The impact of exogenous nitric oxide during cardiopulmonary bypass for cardiac surgery. Perfusion. 2022;37:656–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591211014821.

  24. Ichinose F, Roberts JD Jr., Zapol WM. Inhaled nitric oxide: a selective pulmonary vasodilator: current uses and therapeutic potential. Circulation. 2004;109:3106–11. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000134595.80170.62.

  25. Kolcz J, Karnas E, Madeja Z, Zuba-Surma EK. The cardioprotective and anti-inflammatory effect of inhaled nitric ox ide during Fontan surgery in patients with single ventricle congenital heart defects: a prospective randomized study. J Intensive Care. 2022;10:48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-022-00639-y.

  26. Lundberg JO, Weitzberg E, Gladwin MT. The nitrate-nitrite-nitric oxide pathway in physiology and therapeutic s. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008;7:156–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2466.

  27. Seghaye M-C. The clinical implications of the systemic inflammatory reaction relate d to cardiac operations in children. Cardiol Young. 2003;13:228–39. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1047951103000465.

  28. García-Camacho C, Marín-Paz A-J, Lagares-Franco C, Abellán-Hervás M-J, Sáinz-Otero A-M. Continuous ultrafiltration during extracorporeal circulation and its e ffect on lactatemia: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0242411. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242411.

  29. Pichugin VV, Seyfetdinov IR, Ryazanov MV, Domnin SE, Gamzaev AB, Chiginev VA et al. New Technology for the use of inhaled nitric oxide to protect the hear t and lungs during Operations with Cardiopulmonary Bypass. Sovrem Tekhnologii Med. 2021;12:28–34. https://doi.org/10.17691/stm2020.12.5.03.

  30. Kamenshchikov NO, Mandel IA, Podoksenov YK, Svirko YS, Lomivorotov VV, Mikheev SL et al. Nitric oxide provides myocardial protection when added to the cardiopu lmonary bypass circuit during cardiac surgery: Randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;157(6):2328–36.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.08.117.

  31. Bizzarro M, Gross I, Barbosa FT. Inhaled nitric oxide for the postoperative management of pulmonary hyp ertension in infants and children with congenital heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(7):CD005055. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005055.pub3.

  32. Kirbas A, Yalcin Y, Tanrikulu N, Gürer O, Isik O. Comparison of inhaled nitric oxide and aerosolized iloprost in pulmona ry hypertension in children with congenital heart surgery. Cardiol J. 2012;19(4):387–94. https://doi.org/10.5603/cj.2012.0070.

  33. Loukanov T, Bucsenez D, Springer W, Sebening C, Rauch H, Roesch E et al. Comparison of inhaled nitric oxide with aerosolized iloprost for treat ment of pulmonary hypertension in children after cardiopulmonary bypas s surgery. Clin Res Cardiol. 2011;100(7):595–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00392-011-0284-5.

  34. Niebler RA, Chiang-Ching H, Daley K, Janecke R, Jobe SM, Mitchell ME et al. Nitric oxide added to the sweep gas of the oxygenator during cardiopul monary bypass in infants: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Artif Organs. 2021;45(1):22–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.13788.

  35. James C, Millar J, Horton S, Brizard C, Molesworth C, Butt W. Nitric oxide administration during paediatric cardiopulmonary bypass: a randomised controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(11):1744–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4420-6.

  36. Hoffman TM, Wernovsky G, Atz AM, Kulik TJ, Nelson DP, Chang AC et al. Efficacy and safety of milrinone in preventing low cardiac output synd rome in infants and children after corrective surgery for congenital h eart disease. Circulation. 2003;107(7):996–1002. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000051365.81920.28.

  37. Du X, Chen H, Song X, Wang S, Hao Z, Yin L et al. Risk factors for low cardiac output syndrome in children with congenit al heart disease undergoing cardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort St Udy. BMC Pediatr. 2020;20(1):87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-020-1972-y.

  38. Salvin JW, Scheurer MA, Laussen PC, Wypij D, Polito A, Bacha EA et al. Blood transfusion after pediatric cardiac surgery is associated with p rolonged hospital stay. Ann Thorac Surg.2011;91(1):204–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.07.037.

  39. Shi S, Zhao Z, Liu X, Shu Q, Tan L, Lin R et al. Perioperative risk factors for prolonged mechanical ventilation follow ing cardiac surgery in neonates and young infants. Chest. 2008;134(4):768–74. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.07-2573.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Qiliang Zhang and Dr. Yioung Zheng for providing method guidance and Dr. Xinrui Wang for critically reviewing the manuscript.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fujian Children’s Hospital (Fujian Branch of Shanghai Children’s Medical Center), College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350014, China

    Minli Zhao, Qiuping Zhang, Yuan Lin, Yukun Chen & Hua Cao

  2. Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital, College of Clinical Medicine for Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pediatrics, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350000, China

    Minli Zhao, Qiuping Zhang, Yuan Lin, Yukun Chen & Hua Cao

  3. NHC Key Laboratory of Technical Evaluation of Fertility Regulation for Non-Human Primate (Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital), Fuzhou, 350000, China

    Minli Zhao, Qiuping Zhang, Yuan Lin, Yukun Chen & Hua Cao

Authors
  1. Minli Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qiuping Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuan Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yukun Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hua Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

H. C conceptualized the study. Q. P. Z, Y. L and Y. K. C collected the data. M. L. Z conducted the data analysis and drafted the original version of the manuscript. H. C revised and edited the manuscript, focusing on important content. All authors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and have approved the final versions of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hua Cao.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Local internal review board approved the study. All participants provided written consent and/or assent to enroll in the study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, M., Zhang, Q., Lin, Y. et al. Impact of nitric oxide via cardiopulmonary bypass on pediatric heart surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Cardiothorac Surg 19, 461 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-024-02953-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-024-02953-y

Keywords

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery

ISSN: 1749-8090

Contact us