Prospective, Randomized Un-Blinded Three Arm Controlled Study in Coronary Artery Revascularization with Minimal Invasive Extracorporeal Circulation Systems (MiECC): Surrogate Parameter Analysis of Biocompatibility


  • Arndt H Kiessling Department of Clinical Research, Medical School Berlin, Berlin, Germany
  • Harald Keller Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital, Frankfurt/Main, Germany
  • Anton Moritz Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital, Frankfurt/Main, Germany



Objectives: Minimal extracorporeal circulation techniques and systems (MiECC) may reduce the negative side effects of conventional extracorporeal circulation (ECC). However, it is still unclear as to what this is caused by, the reduced priming volume and hemodilution, or the avoidance of blood-air contact and dispersion of mediastinal debris into the systemic circulation. The aim of the trial was the comparison of MiECC to an open ECC setup (openECC) or a system with reduced blood air and debris interaction (closeECC). 

Methods: In a prospective randomized trial, 72 patients (73 ± 5.3 years; 83% male) referred for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) were randomly assigned either to MiECC (priming volume 550mL), closeECC, or openECC (priming volume 1250mL). The laboratory surrogate endpoints (renal function, inflammatory response, ischemia, coagulation, and hemolysis) and clinical data were measured at six different time points (T1-6). 

Results: Patients were comparable for all preoperative variables. The operation times (MiECC 261 ± 79min; openECC 264 ± 75min; closeECC 231 ± 68min) and perfusion times (MiECC 115 ± 49min; openECC353 107 ± 37min; closeECC 99 ± 22min) revealed a trend of faster performance in the closeECC group (P < .05). Pro-inflammatory cytokines, ischemia, and coagulation markers were significantly elevated postoperatively in all cardiopulmonary bypass types, and decreased to pre-baseline levels at discharge (T5) without identifiable statistical differences between the three study groups. Free-hemoglobin was not significantly increased by centrifugal pump or cell saver procedures. Significant intraoperative hemodilution effects due to the different priming volumes were demonstrated only at the end of operation (T2) (MiECC Hb 9.6 ± 1.1g/dL; openECC Hb 9.0 ± 0.8g/dL; closeECC Hb 8.7 ± 1g/dL; P =. 01).

Conclusion: Neither the hemodilution, suction technique (MiECC), nor blood-air interface (closeECC) could show sustainable benefits in this underpowered study, compared to conventional ECC systems (openECC) in a high volume series of surrogate parameters. 

Author Biography

Arndt H Kiessling, Department of Clinical Research, Medical School Berlin, Berlin, Germany

MSB Medical School Berlin
Hochschule für Gesundheit und Medizin
Siemens Villa
Calandrellistraße 1-9
12247 Berlin


with a minimal invasice extracorporeal bypass system: is there a clinical benefit? Ann Thorac Surg 80:238-43.

Anastasiadis K, Murkin J, Antonitsis P, et al. 2016. Use of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation in cardiac surgery: principles, definitions and potential benefits. A position paper from the Minimal invasive Extra-Corporeal Technologies international Society (MiECTiS). Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 22:647-62.

Beghi C, Nicolini F, Agostinelli A, et al. 2006. Mini-cardiopulmonary bypass system: results of a prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg 81:1396-400.

Borst C, Gründeman PF. 1999. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting: an experimental perspective. Circulation 99:1400-3.

Chai PJ, Nassar R, Oakeley AE, et al. 2000. Soluble complement receptor-1 protects heart, lung, and cardiac myofilament function from cardiopulmonary bypass damage. Circulation 101:541-6.

El-Essawi A, Hajek T, Skorpil J, et al. 2011. Are minimal invasive perfusion circuits the better heart lung machines? Final results of a prospective randomized multicentre study. Perfusion 26:470-8.

El-Sabbagh AM, Toomasian CJ, Toomasian JM, et al. 2013. Effect of air exposure and suction on blood cell activation and hemolysis in an in vitro cardiotomy suction model. ASAIO J 59:474-9.

Farneti PA, Sbrana S, Spiller D, et al. 2008. Reduction of blood coagulation and monocyte-platelet interaction following the use of a minimal extracorporeal circulation system (Synergy) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Perfusion 23:49-56.

Formica F, Mariani S, Broccolo F, et al. 2013. Systemic and myocardial inflammatory response in coronary artery bypass graft surgery with miniaturized extracorporeal circulation: differences with a standard circuit and off-pump technique in a randomized clinical trial. ASAIO J 59:600-6.

Fromes Y, Gaillard D, Ponzio O, et al. 2002. Reduction of the inflammatory response following coronary bypass grafting with total minimal extracorporeal circulation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 22:527-33.

Gibbon JH Jr. 1994. Application of a mechanical heart and lung apparatus to cardiac surgery. Minn Med 37:171-85.

Khan NE, De Souza A, Mister R, et al. 2004. A randomized comparison of off-pump and on-pump multivessel coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 350:21-8.

Koch CG, Khandwala F, Li L, et al. 2006. Persistent effect of red cell transfusion on health-related quality of life after cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 82:13-20.

Koch CG, Li L, Duncan AI, et al. 2006. Transfusion in coronary artery bypass grafting is associated with reduced long-term survival. Ann Thorac Surg 81:1650-7.

Laffey JG, Boylan JF, Cheng DC. 2002. The systemic inflammatory response to cardiac surgery: implications for the anesthesiologist. Anesthesiology. 97:215-52.J.

Levy JH, Tanaka KA. 2003. Inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 75:S715-20.

Mazzei V, Nasso G, Salamone G, et al. 2007. Prospective randomized comparison of coronary bypass grafting with minimal extracorporeal circulation system (MIECC) versus off-pump coronary surgery. Circulation 116:1761-7.

Nakahira A, Sasaki Y, Hirai H, et al. 2011. Cardiotomy suction, but not open venous reservoirs, activates coagulofibrinolysis in coronary artery surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 141:1289-97.

Remadi JP, Rakotoarivelo Z, Marticho P, et al. 2006. Prospective randomized study comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with the new mini-extracorporeal circulation Jostra System or with a standard cardiopulmonary bypass. Am Heart J 151:198.

Royston D. 1997. The inflammatory response and extracorporeal circulation. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 11:341-54.

Svitek V, Lonsky V, Anjum F. 2010. Pathophysiological aspects of cardiotomy suction usage. Perfusion 25:147-52.

Van Boven WJ, Gerritsen WB, Zanen P, et al. 2005. Pneumoproteins as a lung-specific biomarker of alveolar permeability in conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery vs mini-extracorporeal circuit: a pilot study. Chest 127:1190-5.

Vohra HA, Whistance R, Modi A, et al. 2009. The inflammatory response to miniaturised extracorporeal circulation: a review of the literature. Mediators Inflamm 2009:707042.

Wheeldon DR, Bethune DW, Gill RD. 1990. Vortex pumping for routine cardiac surgery: a comparative study. Perfusion 5:135-43.



How to Cite

Kiessling, A. H., Keller, H., & Moritz, A. (2018). Prospective, Randomized Un-Blinded Three Arm Controlled Study in Coronary Artery Revascularization with Minimal Invasive Extracorporeal Circulation Systems (MiECC): Surrogate Parameter Analysis of Biocompatibility. The Heart Surgery Forum, 21(3), E179-E186.