Minimized Cardiopulmonary Bypass Combined with a Smart Suction Device: The Future of Cardiopulmonary Bypass?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1532/HSF98.20070703Abstract
Objective. The standard heart-lung machine is a major trigger of systemic inflammatory response and the morbidity attributed to conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) is still significant. Reduction of blood-artificial surface contact and reduction of priming volume are principal aims in minimized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) cardiopulmonary bypass systems. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the literature and to present our experience with the MECC-smart suction system.
Methods and Results. At our institution, 1799 patients underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery, 1372 with a MECC-smart suction system and 427 with CECC. All in-hospital data were assessed and the results were compared between the 2 groups. Patient characteristics and the distribution of EuroSCORE risk profile in our collective were similar between both groups. Average age in the MECC collective was 67.5 ± 11.4 years and average EuroSCORE was 5.0 ± 1.5. Average number of distal anastomoses was similar to the average number encountered in patients undergoing CABG surgery with CECC (3.3 ± 1.0 for MECC versus 3.2 ± 1.1 for CECC; P = ns). Myocardial protection is superior in MECC patients with lower postoperative maximal cTnI values (11.0 ± 10.8 ?mol/L for MECC versus 24.7 ± 25.3 ?mol/L for CECC; P < .05). Postoperative recovery was faster in patients operated on with the MECC-smart suction system and discharge from the hospital was earlier than for CECC patients (7.4 ± 1.9 days for MECC versus 8.8 ± 3.8 days for CECC; P < .05).
Conclusions. The MECC-smart suction system is a safe perfusion technique for CABG surgery. In patients operated on with this system, the clinical outcome seems to be better than in patients operated on with CECC. This promising and less damaging perfusion technology has the potential to replace CECC systems in CABG surgery.
References
Abdel-Rahmann U, Martens S, Risteski P, et al. 2006. The use of minimized extracorporeal circulation system has a beneficial effect on hemostasis—a randomized clinical study. Heart Surg Forum 9:E543-8.nAbdel-Rahmann U, Ozaslan F, Risteski PS, et al. 2005. Initial experience with a minimized extracorporeal bypass system: is there a clinical benefit? Ann Thorac Surg 80:238-43.nChang PP, Sussman MS, Conte JV, et al. 2002. Post-operative ventricular function and cardiac enzymes after on-pump versus off-pump CABG surgery. Am J Cardiol 89:1107-10.nGundry SR, Romano MA, Shattuck OH, et al. 1998. Seven-year follow-up of coronary artery bypasses performed with and without cardiopulmonary bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 115:1273-8.nImmer FF, Pirovino C, Gygax E, et al. 2005. Minimal versus conventional cardiopulmonary bypass: assessment of intraoperative myocardial damage in coronary bypass surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 28: 701-4.nLevy JH, Tanaka KA. 2003. Inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 75:715-20.nLiebold A, Khosravi A, Westphal B, et al. 2006. Effect of closed minimized cardiopulmonary bypass on cerebral tissue oxygenation and microembolization. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:268-76.nPentilä HJ, Lepojärvi MVK, Kiviluoma KT, et al. 2001. Myocardial preservation during coronary surgery with and without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 71:565-71.nRemadi JP, Rakotoarivelo Z, Marticho P, et al. 2006. Prospective randomized study comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with bypass. Am Heart J 151:198.nRoach GW, Kanchuger M, Mora Mangano CM, et al. 1996. Adverse cerebral outcomes after coronary artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 335:1857-63.nSkrabal CA, Choi YH, Kaminski A, et al. 2006. Circulating endothelial cells demonstrate an attenuation of endothelial damage by minimizing the extracorporeal circulation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 132:291-6.nWiesenack C, Liebold A, Philipp A, et al. 2004. Four years' experience with a miniaturized extracorporeal circulation system and its influence on clinical outcome. Artif Organs 28:1082-8.n
