Key result
Minimal extracorporeal circulation during aortic valve replacement yielded higher functional capillary density at cross-clamping than conventional circulation.
Why the study?
Does closed minimal extracorporeal circulation improve microvascular tissue perfusion compared to conventional open extracorporeal circulation in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement?
RCT (n=20)
Single-blind
Does closed minimal extracorporeal circulation improve microvascular tissue perfusion compared to conventional open extracorporeal circulation in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement?
The use of MECC during surgical AVR is safe and preserves microvascular blood flow velocity while reducing hemodilution, though it does not improve overall functional capillary density compared to CECC.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports MECC for microvascular perfusion in AVR; extends evidence on minimized extracorporeal circuits.
OBJECTIVES: Closed minimal extracorporeal circulation (MECC) systems currently do not represent the standard of surgical care for open-heart surgery. Yet, considering the beneficial results reported for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, we used an MECC system in aortic valve replacement (AVR) and analysed the effects on intraoperative microvascular perfusion in comparison with conventional open extracorporeal circulation (CECC). METHODS: In the current study, we analysed alterations in microvascular perfusion at 4 predefined time points (T1-T4) during surgical AVR utilizing orthogonal polarization spectral (OPS) imaging. Twenty patients were randomized for being operated on utilizing either MECC or CECC. Changes in functional capillary density (FCD, cm/cm(2)), mircovascular blood flow velocity (mm/s) and vessel diameter (μm) were analysed by a blinded investigator. RESULTS: After the start of extracorporeal circulation and aortic cross-clamping (T2), both groups showed a significant drop in FCD, but with a significantly higher FCD in the MECC group (153.1 ± 15.0 cm/cm² in the CECC group vs 160.8 ± 12.2 cm/cm² in the MECC group, P = 0.034). During the late phase of the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) (T3), the FCD was still significantly depressed in both treatment groups (153.5 ± 14.6 cm/cm² in the CECC group, P <0.05 vs 'T1'; 159.5 ± 12.4 cm/cm² in the MECC group, P <0.05 versus 'T1'). After termination of CPB (T4), the FCD recovered in both groups to baseline values. Microvascular blood flow velocity tended to remain at a higher level in the MECC group, whereas haemodilution during CPB was significantly reduced in the MECC group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of MECC in AVR did not affect procedural safety and, resulted in beneficial preservation of microvascular blood flow velocity and significantly reduced haemodilution during CPB. In contrast to CABG surgery, the use of MECC did not improve FCD during surgical AVR. Clinical advantages possibly resulting from attenuated haemodilution and preservation of microvascular blood flow velocity require further validation in larger patient cohorts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Donndorf et al. (2014) conducted an RCT in Surgical aortic valve replacement (n=20). Closed minimal extracorporeal circulation (MECC) vs. Conventional open extracorporeal circulation (CECC) was evaluated on Functional capillary density (FCD) at aortic cross-clamping (T2) (p=0.034). Minimal extracorporeal circulation during aortic valve replacement yielded higher functional capillary density at cross-clamping than conventional circulation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: