Key result
Assisted venous drainage during mini-AVR linked to ~8% higher BSA and greater CPB flow.
Why the study?
The necessity and rationale for assisted venous drainage during cardiopulmonary bypass in every patient undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement has not been fully elucidated.
Is assisted venous drainage necessary for all patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement?
Cohort (n=57)
No
Is assisted venous drainage necessary for all patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.93% vs 1.79%
p-value: p=0.03
Assisted venous drainage during minimally invasive aortic valve replacement is not necessary for all patients, but is required in those with higher body surface areas needing higher cardiopulmonary bypass flow rates.
Challenges necessity of routine AVD in mAVR; leaves open selective use in centrally cannulated patients.
Assisted venous drainage (AVD) is considered an essential component of the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) circuit for minimal access aortic valve replacement (mAVR). The rationale/necessity for AVD in every patient has not been fully elucidated. Data from consecutive patients undergoing isolated first-time mAVR by a single surgeon from March 2006 to October 2008 was prospectively collected. All cases were cannulated centrally. Venous drainage was by a three-stage cannula (Medtronic MC2X) via the right atrial appendage. AVD was utilised intraoperatively at the discretion of the perfusionist and/or surgeon to maintain the required flow rate. Pre- and perioperative data were compared between the two groups. Fifty-seven patients underwent mAVR. Twenty-nine did not require assistance (AVD-), 28 did (AVD+). There were no significant differences between the two groups' age, sex distribution, body mass index and risk stratification data. Patients who required AVD had significantly higher body surface areas (BSAs) [1.93 m(2) (1.56-2.46) vs. 1.79 m(2) (1.41-2.26), P=0.03] and consequent higher CPB flow required [4.62 l/min (3.74-5.90) vs. 4.29 l/min (3.38-5.42), P=0.03]. Patients who required AVD tended to have longer ischaemic times [79.5 min (48-135) vs. 69 min (47-126), P=0.06]. AVD during mAVR is not necessary in every patient. We found it to be necessary in patients with higher BSA (consequently requiring a higher flow rate on CPB).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vaughan et al. (2010) conducted a cohort in Minimal access aortic valve replacement (mAVR) (n=57). Assisted venous drainage (AVD) vs. No assisted venous drainage was evaluated on Body surface area (BSA) (p=0.03). Patients requiring assisted venous drainage during minimal access aortic valve replacement had significantly higher body surface areas (1.93 vs. 1.79 m2, P=0.03) and required higher CPB flow.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: