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: Pulsatile Versus Nonpulsatile Flow During Cardiopulmonary Bypass: Extent of Hemolysis and Clinical Significance.
    Author: Tan Z, Besser M, Anderson S, Newey C, Iles R, Dunning J, Falter F.
    Journal: ASAIO J; 2020; 66(9):1025-1030. PubMed ID: 32224786.
    Abstract:
    Pulsatile flow has been used during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for decades and its use is increasing with advancing extracorporeal technology. Pulsatile flow generates higher circuit pressures and shear forces than nonpulsatile flow at comparable pump flow and patient mean arterial pressure. Very little is known about the effect this has on erythrocytes. We included 62 adult patients (32 in the pulsatile group and 30 in the nonpulsatile group) undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting in this prospective observational study. Blood samples were collected at routine sampling times throughout surgery and were analyzed for the presence of free heme and globin using mass spectroscopy. Patient characteristics, CPB, and aortic cross-clamp times, pump flow as well as patient mean arterial pressure were similar in both groups. Maximum circuit pressure in the pulsatile flow group was statistically significantly higher than that in the nonpulsatile flow group (257.12 vs. 190.64 mmHg, p < 0.0001). Both heme and globin levels were higher in the pulsatile flow group. This reached statistical significance with globin at 30 minutes of CPB and with heme after aortic unclamping. We conclude that pulsatile CPB using roller pumps results in a greater extent of hemolysis. The clinical significance, however, is not yet known.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]