Why the study?
Does carbon dioxide (CO2) field flooding reduce intracardiac bubbles compared to mechanical de-airing in patients undergoing elective valvular surgery?
Does carbon dioxide (CO2) field flooding reduce intracardiac bubbles compared to mechanical de-airing in patients undergoing elective valvular surgery?
Carbon dioxide field flooding is more effective than mechanical de-airing for removing intracardiac bubbles during elective valvular surgery.
CO2 flooding reduces intracardiac bubbles versus mechanical de-airing in valvular surgery; supports adoption and outcome trials on embolic risk.
Removal of intracardiac air during valvular surgery should be accomplished in the most effective manner. We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial to compare mechanical de-airing and carbon dioxide (CO2) field flooding in 18 patients undergoing elective valvular surgery. Transoesophageal echocardiography was used to record intracardiac bubbles, and this was assessed postoperatively by two independent echocardiographers blinded to treatment group. Both assessors graded the bubble count higher in the mechanical deairing group compared with the CO2 flooding group, and there was good agreement between assessors. CO2 field flooding is more effective than mechanical de-airing in removing intracardiac bubbles following valvular surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kalpokas et al. (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: