Key result
Adding a pulse pressure generator to an extracorporeal circulation simulator significantly increased the difficulty of operation and mental/physical load for 7 perfusionists.
Why the study?
Does the addition of a pulse pressure generator to an extracorporeal circulation simulator improve the realism and operational feeling of cardiopulmonary bypass training for perfusionists?
Does the addition of a pulse pressure generator to an extracorporeal circulation simulator improve the realism and operational feeling of cardiopulmonary bypass training for perfusionists?
Adding a pulse pressure generator to an extracorporeal circulation simulator significantly increases the realism and mental workload of cardiopulmonary bypass training, better mimicking clinical situations.
May enhance CPB simulator fidelity for perfusionists; leaves open effects on skill transfer and optimal training protocols.
Objective: Cardiopulmonary bypass during cardiac surgery is an essential procedure, and the perfusionist needs to have sufficient education and training. Simulation training is suitable in such cases. We have developed a simulation system for cardiopulmonary bypass training (extracorporeal circulation simulator [ECCSIM]) and reported its efficacy. ECCSIM had no pulse pressure generator, so some perfusionists have mentioned that the operational feeling during training differs from that in real clinical cases. In this study, we have developed a new pulse pressure generator and examined the efficacy of this system during cardiopulmonary bypass training using ECCSIM. Materials and Methods: Results were observed as wave patterns during simulation of extracorporeal circulation with and without pulse pressure flow. Operational feeling during training of extracorporeal circulation was compared using a questionnaire survey, based on the Japanese version of the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), a subjective index, completed by seven perfusionists. Results: With the addition of pulse pressure flow, fluctuation of arterial flow at low speed with the centrifugal pump increased, and operation of extracorporeal circulation became unstable. The questionnaire survey, including ‘Operational feeling of centrifugal pump’, ‘Feeling of afterload’, and ‘Display of pressure monitor’, showed results similar to that of the clinical situation using pulse pressure flow. The difficulty of simulator operation in extracorporeal circulation was significantly greater in the group with pulse pressure flow. Mental/physical load examined with NASA-TLX increased with pulse pressure flow. Conclusion: Using a new pulse pressure generator with ECCSIM was effective in extracorporeal circulation training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Minami et al. (2018) studied Cardiopulmonary bypass training (n=7). Pulse pressure generator vs. Without pulse pressure flow was evaluated on Operational feeling and mental/physical load (NASA-TLX). Adding a pulse pressure generator to an extracorporeal circulation simulator significantly increased the difficulty of operation and mental/physical load for 7 perfusionists.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: