Key result
A high-resistance oxygenator caused a greater decline in mean pressure than a low-resistance oxygenator (32% vs 16%, p<0.0001), but both caused a ~50% loss of generated oscillatory energy.
Why the study?
Does the mechanical characteristic of an oxygenator (high-resistance/low-compliance vs low-resistance/high-compliance) affect energy transfer during clinical cardiopulmonary bypass in adult patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery?
RCT (n=23)
randomly
Does the mechanical characteristic of an oxygenator (high-resistance/low-compliance vs low-resistance/high-compliance) affect energy transfer during clinical cardiopulmonary bypass in adult patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery?
Absolute Event Rate: 32% vs 16%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Different hollow-fibre oxygenators cause comparable loss of generated oscillatory energy during cardiopulmonary bypass, regardless of their resistance and compliance characteristics.
Both oxygenator types cause comparable oscillatory energy loss in CPB; confirms dissipation is independent of resistance characteristics.
The hollow-fibre oxygenator is a key component of any extracorporeal circuit used to provide cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) during open-heart surgery. Since the oxygenator is placed downstream of the pump, the energy losses over it have a direct impact on the quality of pulsatile pressure and flow waveforms. The objective of this study was to describe the effects of hydrodynamic characteristics of the oxygenator on energy transfer during pulsatile, normothermic CPB. Twenty-three adult patients scheduled for coronary bypass surgery were divided randomly into two groups, using either an oxygenator (Group 1) with a relatively high-resistance and low-compliance (2079 ± 148 dyn.s.cm(-5) and 0.00348 ± 0.00071 ml.mmHg(-1), respectively) or an oxygenator (Group 2) with a relatively low-resistance and high-compliance (884 ± 464 dyn.s.cm(-5) and 0.01325 ± 0.00161 ml.mmHg(-1), respectively). During perfusion, pre- and post-oxygenator pressures, radial artery pressure, and blood flow were recorded simultaneously. A 32% decline of mean pressure was observed in Group 1 and a 16% decline in Group 2 (p<0.0001). Another decrease by approximately 73% in mean pressure in the rest of the perfusion system was noted in both groups. The mean radial artery pressure did not differ between the groups (74 ± 6 mmHg in Group 1 and 73 ± 6 mmHg in Group 2, p=0.608). Although lower total energy transfer indices were noticed through the low-resistance oxygenator (Group 2), both oxygenators showed a decrease of the generated pump oscillatory energy of approximately 50%. Despite the differences in resistance and compliance of the hollow-fibre oxygenators used, both oxygenators cause a comparable loss of generated oscillatory energy. Exclusion of the oxygenator downstream of the pulsatile pump would improve energy transfer during CPB.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ganushchak et al. (2010) conducted an RCT in coronary bypass surgery (n=23). High-resistance, low-compliance oxygenator vs. Low-resistance, high-compliance oxygenator was evaluated on Decline of mean pressure (p=<0.0001). A high-resistance oxygenator caused a greater decline in mean pressure than a low-resistance oxygenator (32% vs 16%, p<0.0001), but both caused a ~50% loss of generated oscillatory energy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: