These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Venous cannula performance assessment in a realistic caval tree model.
    Author: Li L, Abdel-Sayed S, Berdajs D, Ferrari E, von Segesser LK.
    Journal: Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg; 2015 Feb; 20(2):194-9. PubMed ID: 25368132.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: A new caval tree system was designed for realistic in vitro simulation. The objective of our study was to assess cannula performance for virtually wall-less versus standard percutaneous thin-walled venous cannulas in a setting of venous collapse in case of negative pressure. METHODS: For a collapsible caval model, a very flexible plastic material was selected, and a model with nine afferent veins was designed according to the anatomy of the vena cava. A flow bench was built including a lower reservoir holding the caval tree, built by taking into account the main afferent vessels and their flow provided by a reservoir 6 cm above. A cannula was inserted in this caval tree and connected to a centrifugal pump that, in turn, was connected to a reservoir positioned 83 cm above the second lower reservoir (after-load = 60 mmHg). Using the same pre-load, the simulated venous drainage for cardiopulmonary bypass was realized using a 24 F wall-less cannula (Smartcanula) and 25 F percutaneous cannula (Biomedicus), and stepwise increased augmentation (1500 RPM, 2000 and 2500 RPM) of venous drainage. RESULTS: For the thin wall and the wall-less cannulas, 36 pairs of flow and pressure measurements were realized for three different RPM values. The mean Q-values at 1500, 2000 and 2500 RPM were: 3.98 ± 0.01, 6.27 ± 0.02 and 9.81 ± 0.02 l/min for the wall-less cannula (P <0.0001), versus 2.74 ± 0.02, 3.06 ± 0.05, 6.78 ± 0.02 l/min for the thin-wall cannula (P <0.0001). The corresponding inlet pressure values were: -8.88 ± 0.01, -23.69 ± 0.81 and -70.22 ± 0.18 mmHg for the wall-less cannula (P <0.0001), versus -36.69 ± 1.88, -80.85 ± 1.71 and -101.83 ± 0.45 mmHg for the thin-wall cannula (P <0.0001). The thin-wall cannula showed mean Q-values 37% less and mean P values 26% more when compared with the wall-less cannula (P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our in vitro water test was able to mimic a negative pressure situation, where the wall-less cannula design performs better compared with the traditional thin-wall cannula.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]