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: Air removal capacity of two different minimal invasive ECC systems: an in vitro comparison.
    Author: Stehouwer MC, de Vroege R.
    Journal: Perfusion; 2019 Oct; 34(7):561-567. PubMed ID: 30915891.
    Abstract:
    Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation systems are developed to decrease the deleterious effects of cardiopulmonary bypass. For instance, prime volume and foreign surface area are decreased in these systems. However, because of the lack of a venous reservoir in minimized systems, air handling properties of these minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation systems may be decreased as compared to conventional cardiopulmonary bypass systems. The aim of this in vitro study is to compare the air handling properties of two complete minimized cardiopulmonary bypass systems of two manufacturers, of which one system is provided with the air purge control. In an in vitro study, two minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation systems, Inspire Min.I manufactured by Sorin Group Italia, Mirandola, Italy (LivaNova, London, United Kingdom) and minimized extracorporeal circulation manufactured by Maquet, Rastatt, Germany (Getinge, Germany), were challenged with two types of air challenges; a bolus air challenge and a gaseous microemboli challenge. The air removal characteristics of the venous bubble traps and of the complete minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation systems were assessed by measuring the gaseous microemboli volume and number downstream of the venous bubble traps in the arterial line with a bubble counter. No significant differences were observed in air reduction between the venous bubble traps of Getinge (venous bubble traps) and LivaNova (Inspire venous bubble traps 8 in conjunction with the air purge control). Similarly, no significant differences were observed in volume and number of gaseous microemboli in the arterial line of both complete minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation systems. However, the gaseous microemboli load of the Inspire Min.I system was marginally lower after both the bolus air and the gaseous microemboli challenges. Both minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation systems assessed in this study, the LivaNova Inspire Min.I and the Getinge minimized extracorporeal circulation, showed comparable air removal properties, after both bolus and gaseous microemboli air challenges. Besides, air purge control automatic air removal system provided with the LivaNova Inspire Min.I. system may enhance patient's safety with the use of a minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation system. We consider both systems equally safe for clinical use.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]