Excessive negative venous line pressures and increased arterial air bubble counts during miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass: an experimental study comparing miniaturized with conventional perfusion systems

Can a low prime volume arterial filter be used as an alternative for a venous bubble trap in minimal extracorporeal circulation? An in vitro investigation

BACKGROUND

During cardiac surgery the use of a minimal extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) system may reduce the adverse effects for the patient. This is probably caused by reduced inflammation and hemodilution. For the use of a MiECC circuit, a venous bubble trap (VBT) is warranted for safety reasons. The aim of this study was to assess if an arterial filter with a small prime volume has the same (or better) air removal capacities as a VBT in a MiECC circuit and subsequentially may be used as an alternative.

METHODS

In an in vitro study, air removal properties were compared between the arterial filter and three VBT's on the market, VBT160 (Getinge), VBT 8 (LivaNova and VARD (Medtronic). In a MiECC circuit, the filter devices were placed in a venous position and challenged with massive and micro air. Gaseous microemboli (GME) were measured with a bubble counter proximal and distal of the VBT device.

RESULTS

More than 99.9 % of the air was removed after a bolus air challenge by all VBT's. Both the VARD and the AF100 showed better GME removal properties (not significant for the AF100) compared to the other devices. All filters showed GME generation after a challenge with massive air. Compared to the other filters, only the VARD showed no passing of larger bubbles when a volume of 50 mL of air was present in the filter.

CONCLUSIONS

The AF100 seems to be a safe and low prime alternative for use in a MiECC system as a venous air trap. A word of caution, placement of the AF100 arterial filter in the venous line is off label use.

Comparison of bubble removal performances of five membrane oxygenators with and without a pre-filter

When employing minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC), the removal of bubbles in the circuit is important to prevent air embolism. We investigated the bubble removal performance of the FHP oxygenator with a pre-filter and compared it with that of four oxygenators, including the Fusion oxygenator, Quadrox oxygenator, Inspire oxygenator, and FX oxygenator. A closed test circuit filled with an aqueous glycerin solution was used. Air injection (10 mL) was performed prior to the oxygenator, and the number and volume of the bubbles were measured at the inlet and outlet of each oxygenator. At the inlet of the five oxygenators, there were no significant differences in the total number of bubbles detected. At the outlet, bubbles were classified into two groups according to the bubble size: ≥100 μm and <100 μm. Tests were performed at pump flow rates of 4 and 5 L/min. For bubbles ≥100 μm, which are considered clinically detrimental, the FHP was the lowest number and volume of bubbles at both pump flow rates compared to the other oxygenators. Regarding the bubbles <100 μm, the number of bubbles was higher in the FHP than those in others; however, the volume of bubbles was significantly lower at 4 L/min and tended to be lower at 5 L/min. The use of the FHP with the pre-filter removed more bubbles ≥100 μm in the circuit than that by the other oxygenators.

The influence of gaseous microemboli on various biomarkers after minimized cardiopulmonary bypass

Introduction:

Gaseous microemboli that originate from the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit may contribute to adverse outcome after cardiac surgery. We prospectively evaluated the influence of gaseous microemboli on the release of various biomarkers after use of a minimally invasive extracorporeal technology system.

Methods:

In 70 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with minimized cardiopulmonary bypass, gaseous microemboli were measured intraoperatively with a bubble counter. Intra- and postoperative biomarker levels for inflammatory response (interleukin-6, C5b-9), endothelial damage (von Willebrand factor, soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1), oxidative stress (malondialdehyde, 8-isoprostane, neuroketal), and neurological injury (neuron-specific enolase, brain-type fatty acid-binding protein) were analyzed using immune assay techniques. The relationship between gaseous microemboli number or volume and the incremental area under the curve (iAUC24h) or peak change for the biomarkers was calculated.

Results:

All biomarkers except for malondialdehyde increased at least temporarily after coronary artery bypass grafting with a minimally invasive extracorporeal technology system. The median total gaseous microemboli number was 6,174 (interquartile range: 3,507-10,531) and the median total gaseous microemboli volume was 4.31 µL (interquartile range: 2.71-8.50). There were no significant correlations between total gaseous microemboli number or volume and iAUC24h or peak change for any of the biomarkers. After controlling for the variance of possible other predictor variables, multiple linear regression analysis showed no association between gaseous microemboli parameters and release of biomarkers.

Conclusion:

This study showed no evidence that gaseous microemboli contribute to increased biomarker levels after coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass. A reason for the absence of damage by gaseous microemboli may be the relative and considerably small amount of gaseous microemboli entering the patients in this study.

Can venous cannula design influence venous return and negative pressure with a minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation?

INTRODUCTION

Recent advances to make cardiopulmonary bypass more physiological include the use of kinetic-assisted venous drainage but without a venous reservoir. Despite manipulation of intravascular volume and patient positioning, arterial flow is frequently reduced. Negative venous line pressures can be generated, which may elicit gaseous microemboli. We investigated the influence of venous cannula design on venous return and negative venous line pressures.

METHODS

In a single-centre, single-surgeon, prospective, randomized, double-blind trial, 48 patients undergoing isolated coronary artery, aortic valve or combined coronary artery and aortic valve surgery, with a minimally invasive circuit, were randomized to a conventional two-stage (2S) or three-stage venous cannula (3S), or to a three-stage venous cannula with additional 'fenestrated' ridges (F3S). Blood flow, venous line pressures and gaseous microemboli number and size were measured.

RESULTS

The pump flow achieved was the same between groups, but in each case fell below the target range of 2.2-2.4 L min^-1 m^-2. The three-stage cannula recorded significantly lower negative pressure than the other cannulae. The total count and volume of gaseous emboli detected with the F3S cannulae was very high in some cases, with wide heterogeneity.

DISCUSSION

The low negative pressures recorded with three-stage cannula, despite having a larger drainage orifice area, suggest that negative pressure may be more influenced by lumen diameter and vena cava collapse rather than drainage hole size. The additional fenestrations resulted in flow characteristics and negative pressures similar to the larger two-stage cannula but are associated with generation of gaseous microemboli.

Air removal capacity of two different minimal invasive ECC systems: an in vitro comparison

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.

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)

Minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) systems have initiated important efforts within science and technology to further improve the biocompatibility of cardiopulmonary bypass components to minimize the adverse effects and improve end-organ protection. The Minimal invasive Extra-Corporeal Technologies international Society was founded to create an international forum for the exchange of ideas on clinical application and research of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation technology. The present work is a consensus document developed to standardize the terminology and the definition of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation technology as well as to provide recommendations for the clinical practice. The goal of this manuscript is to promote the use of MiECC systems into clinical practice as a multidisciplinary strategy involving cardiac surgeons, anaesthesiologists and perfusionists.

Counteracting negative venous line pressures to avoid arterial air bubbles: an experimental study comparing two different types of miniaturized extracorporeal perfusion systems

Background

Because of its low rate of clinical complications, miniaturized extracorporeal perfusion systems (MEPS) are frequently used in heart centers worldwide. However, many recent studies refer to the higher probability of gaseous microemboli formation by MEPS, caused by subzero pressure values. This is the main reason why various de-airing devices were developed for today’s perfusion systems. In the present study, we investigated the potential benefits of a simple one-way-valve connected to a volume replacement reservoir (OVR) for volume and pressure compensation.

Methods

In an experimental study on 26 pigs, we compared MEPS (n = 13) with MEPS plus OVR (n = 13). Except OVR, perfusion equipment was identical in both groups. Primary endpoints were pressure values in the venous line and the right atrium as well as the number and volume of air bubbles. Secondary endpoints were biochemical parameters of systemic inflammatory response, ischemia, hemodilution and hemolysis.

Results

One animal was lost in the MEPS + OVR group. In the MEPS + OVR group no pressure values below −150 mmHg in the venous line and no values under -100 mmHg in right atrium were noticed. On the contrary, nearly 20 % of venous pressure values in the MEPS group were below −150 and approximately 10 % of right atrial pressure values were below -100 mmHg. Compared with the MEPS group, the bubble counter device showed lower numbers of arterial air bubbles in the MEPS + OVR group (mean ± SD: 13444 ± 5709 vs. 1 ± 2, respectively; p < 0.001). In addition, bubble volume was significantly lower in the MEPS + OVR group than in the MEPS group (mean ± SD: 1522 ± 654 μl vs. 4 ± 6 μl, respectively; p < 0.001). The proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 and biochemical indices of cardiac ischemia (creatine kinase, and troponin I) were comparable between both groups.

Conclusions

The use of a miniaturized perfusion system with a volume replacement reservoir is able to counteract excessive negative venous line pressures and to reduce the number and volume of arterial air bubbles. This approach may lead to a lower rate of neurological complications.

The inflammatory response between miniaturised and conventional cardiopulmonary bypass after cardiac surgery in an Asian population

INTRODUCTION

We compared the systemic inflammatory response of the MCPB system to the CCPB system with cell salvage and phosphorylcholine-coated tubing amongst Asian patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

METHODS

Seventy-eight patients were randomly assigned to the MCPB or the CCPB groups equally and followed up in a prospective, single-blinded, randomised, controlled trial. Levels of TNF-α, IL-6, CRP and LDH were measured peri-operatively.

RESULTS

The systemic inflammatory response was similar in both groups (TNF-α: p=0.222; IL-6: p=0.991; CRP: p=0.258). Only haemolysis was significantly higher in the CCPB group (LDH: p=0.011). The MCPB system was twice more expensive, but had a near 4-fold cost saving in tranfusions. Overall, the MCPB system cost 20% more than the modified CCPB system.

CONCLUSION

These results corroborate with studies that demonstrated the avoidance of cardiotomy suction rather than the MCPB system, itself, leads to an attenuated inflammatory response. The absence of obvious clinical benefit and the higher costs involved with the MCPB system would preclude its routine use.