Key result
Pulsatile blood flow provided more consistent conditions and resulted in a higher eventual oxygen transfer efficiency compared to steady flow (final mean difference = 6.2%, p < 0.05).
Why the study?
Does pulsatile blood flow improve gas transfer efficiency compared to steady blood flow in a hollow fibre oxygenator during a six-hour in vitro perfusion?
Does pulsatile blood flow improve gas transfer efficiency compared to steady blood flow in a hollow fibre oxygenator during a six-hour in vitro perfusion?
Mean Difference: 6.2
p-value: p=< 0.05
Pulsatile blood flow in a hollow fibre oxygenator provides more consistent conditions and higher oxygen transfer efficiency over 6 hours compared to steady flow in an in vitro model.
Does not support pulsatile flow adoption in clinical oxygenators; leaves open in vivo validation of efficiency gains.
Detailed data about the behaviour of commercial membrane oxygenators with pulsatile blood flow are rarely available. This work deals with an experimental evaluation of the effects induced on gas transfer efficiency by pulsatile perfusion of a hollow fibre oxygenator (Monolyth Sorin Biomedica). The oxygenator was subjected to two in vitro trials both carried out with identical experimental protocols except for the flow type, steady and pulsatile. A roller pump with pulsatile module (Stöckert Instrument) was used to generate both flow types. Three different mean blood flow rates (3.2, 4.0 and 4.8 L/min) were tested. The experiments lasting six hours were carried out using bovine blood with inlet conditions according to AAMI standard requirements. Blood samples were withdrawn every hour and the calculated gas transfer obtained in the two sessions were compared. The device proved to be well-designed for steady flow and to be liable to similar gas transfer performance when used in pulsatile conditions. Furthermore, the use of pulsatile flow rather than steady flow provided more consistent conditions and resulted in a higher eventual oxygen transfer efficiency (final mean difference = 6.2%, p < 0.05), proving to be able to avoid any performance decays.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pennati et al. (1998) studied this question. Pulsatile blood flow vs. Steady blood flow was evaluated on Oxygen transfer efficiency (mean difference 6.2%, p=< 0.05). Pulsatile blood flow provided more consistent conditions and resulted in a higher eventual oxygen transfer efficiency compared to steady flow (final mean difference = 6.2%, p < 0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: