Remadi 2006.

Study characteristics
Methods	Prospective randomised study Run‐in period: from 1998 to December 2003 Submitted: 15 January 2004 Accepted: 26 March 2005 Number of study centres and locations: single centre. South Hospital, Amiens Cedex 1, France
Participants	Four hundred patients underwent elective CABG using a standard CPB (200 patients) or a Jostra MECC System (200 patients) Mean age: 64.7 years Sex (female/male ratio): 12% No high‐risk population Inclusion criteria: elective CABG Exclusion criteria: renal dysfunction (Cr > 1.2 mg/dL) and re‐do procedures
Interventions	Intervention group: MiECC, a fully heparinised closed‐loop CPB system (Bioline‐Jostra, Gretz, France) Control group: a standard CPB
Outcomes	Mortality rate, low‐cardiac‐output syndrome, inflammatory response, CRP, Hct and Hb rate, intraoperative transfusion rate, postoperative blood Cr and urea, haemodynamic data
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No mention of random sequence generation. However, there was no statistically significant difference in preoperative comorbidity between groups.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No description of allocation concealment method used
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No mention of blinding of participants and personnel. However, because of the nature of the intervention, operating room and surgical team were aware of the circuit used for CPB.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No mention regarding blinding of outcome assessment
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No trial group changes, no withdrawals, and no losses to follow‐up reported, but no intention‐to‐treat analysis. Data from all the patients were included in the final analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Measures of systemic inflammatory response were not performed because the number of participants was too high.
Other bias	Low risk	The authors had no financial or conflict of interest relative to this work.