Virtually Wall-Less versus Standard Thin-Wall Venous Cannula in the Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery: Single-Center Experience

Background and Objectives: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) has been developing since 1996. Peripheral cannulation is required to perform MICS, and good venous drainage and a bloodless field are crucial for the success of this procedure. We assessed the benefits of using a virtually wall-less cannula in comparison with the standard thin-wall cannula in clinical practice. Materials and Methods: Between January 2021 and December 2022, we evaluated 65 elective patients, who underwent isolated minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. Both the virtually wall-less and the thin-wall cannulas were placed through a surgical cut-down. Patients' characteristics at baseline were similar in the two groups, except for the body surface area (BSA), which was greater in the virtually wall-less group compared to the thin-wall one. In the standard group, the size of the cannula was chosen depending on the patient's BSA, and the choice of the Smartcannula was based on their height. Results: There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of negative pressure applied, target flow achieved, hemolysis, the need for blood transfusion, and the post-operative increases in liver and renal enzymes. However, in all the patients, the estimated target flow was achieved, thereby showing the better hemodynamic performance of the virtually wall-less cannula, since, in this group, the patients' BSA was significantly greater compared to the thin-wall group. Ultimately, the mean cross-clamp time, as an indirect index of the effectiveness of the venous drainage, is shorter in the virtually wall-less group compared with the thin-wall group. Conclusions: The virtually wall-less cannula should be preferred in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery due to its superior performance in terms of venous drainage compared with the standard thin-wall cannula.

Effect of blood viscosity on the performance of virtually wall-less venous cannulas

AIM

This study was designed to quantify the influence of blood as test medium compared to water in cannula bench performance assessment.

METHODS

An in vitro circuit was set-up with silicone tubing between two reservoirs. The test medium was pumped from the lower reservoir by centrifugal pump to the upper reservoir. The test-cannula was inserted in a silicone tube connected between the lower reservoir and the centrifugal pump. Flow rate and pump inlet-pressure were measured for wall-less versus thin-wall cannula using a centrifugal pump in a dynamic bench-test for an afterload of 40-60 mmHg using two media: blood 10 g/dL and 5.6 g/dL and water 0 g/dL.

RESULTS

The wall-less cannula showed significantly higher flows rates as compared to the thin-wall cannula (control), with both hemoglobin concentrations and water. Indeed, for a target volume of 200-250 mL of blood (Hg 10 g/dL) in the upper reservoir, the cannula outlet pressure (P) was -14 ± 14 mmHg versus -18 ± 11 mmHg for the wall-less and control respectively; the cannula outlet flow rate (Q) was 3.91 ± 0.41 versus 3.67 ± 0.45 L/min, respectively. At the same target volume but with a Hg of 5.7 g/dL, P was -16 ± 12 mmHg versus -19 ± 12 mmHg and Q was 4 ± 0.1 versus 4 ± 0.4 L/min for the wall-less cannula and control respectively. Likewise, P and Q values with water were -1 mmHg versus -0.67 ± 0.58 mmHg and 4.17 ± 0.45 L/min versus 4.08 ± 0.47 L/min for the wall-less and control respectively.

CONCLUSION

Walls-less cannula showed 5.6% less pump inlet-pressure differences calculated between blood and water, as compared to that of thin-wall cannula (-21 times). Flow differences were 6% and 10% for the walls-less and thin-wall cannula respectively. We conclude that testing the cannula performance with water is a good scenario and can overestimate the flow by a 10%. However, superiority for wall-less is preserved with both water and blood.

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.

Hydrodynamic Evaluations of Four Mock Femoral Venous Cannulas

Objective

To report the results of four mock femoral venous cannulas and the hydrodynamical superiority of one of them, which is the completely punched (CP) model, upon the other three.

Methods

Four simulated femoral venous cannulas (single-stage, two-stage, multi-stage, and CP model) were designed from a 1/4” x 1/16” x 68 cm polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tubing line for testing. Holes on the PVC tubes were opened by a 5 mm aortic punch. In order to evaluate the cannulas' drainage performance, gelofusine was used as fluid. The fluid was drained for 60 seconds by gravitation and then measured for each model separately.

Results

Mean drained volumes of single-stage, two-stage, and multi-stage cannulas were 2.483, 2.561, and 2.603 mL, respectively. However, the CP cannula provided us a mean drained volume of 2.988 mL. There were significant differences among the variables of the CP cannula and the other three mock cannulas concerning the drained fluid flow (P<0.01).

Conclusion

In our study, the measured mean volumes showed us that more drainage surface area provides better fluid drainage.

New, optimized, dual-lumen cannula for veno-venous ECMO

Objective:

The present study was designed to assess in vivo a new, optimized, virtually wall-less, dual-lumen, bi-caval cannula for veno-venous ECMO in comparison to a commercially available cannula.

Methods:

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was carried out in a bovine study (n=5, bodyweight 75±5kg). Following systemic heparinization, ECMO was established in a trans-jugular fashion through a calibrated 23F orifice, using a new, optimized, virtually wall-less, dual-lumen, bi-caval 24F cannula (Smartcanula LLC, Lausanne, Switzerland) versus a commercially available 23F bi-caval, dual-lumen control cannula (Avalon Elite®, Maquet, Rastatt, Germany) in a veno-venous ECMO setup. Veno-venous ECMO was initiated at 500 revolutions per minute (RPM) and increased by incremental steps of 500 RPM up to 2500 RPM. Catheter outlet pressure, catheter inlet pressure, oxygen saturation and pump flow were recorded at each stage.

Results:

Mean flow accounted for 0.37±0.04 L/min for wall-less versus 0.29± 0.07 L/min for control at 500 RPM, 0.97±0.12 versus 0.67±0.06 at 1000 RPM, 1.60±0.14 versus 1.16±0.08 at 1500 RPM, 2.31±0.13 versus 1.52±0.13 for 2000 RPM and 3.02±0.5 versus 2.11±0.18 (p<0.004). The mean venous suction required was 19±8 mmHg for wall-less versus 20±3 mmHg for control at 500 RPM, 7±3 versus 9±4 for 1000 RPM, -11±10 versus -12±8 at 1500 RPM, -39±15 versus -49±10 for 2000 RPM and -60±28 versus -94±7 for 2500 RPM. The mean venous injection pressure accounted for 29±7 mmHg for wall-less versus 27±5 mmHg for control at 500 RPM, 50±6 versus 61±7 at 1000 RPM, 89±10 versus 99±17 for 1500 RPM, 142±14 versus 161±9 at 2000 RPM and 211±41 versus 252 ±3 for 2500 RPM.

Conclusion:

Compared to the commercially available control cannula, the new, optimized, virtually wall-less, dual-lumen, bi-caval 24F cannula allows for significantly higher blood flows, requires less suction and results in lower injection pressures in vivo.

New, Virtually Wall-Less Cannulas Designed for Augmented Venous Drainage in Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery

Objective

Inadequate venous drainage during minimally invasive cardiac surgery becomes most evident when the blood trapped in the pulmonary circulation floods the surgical field. The present study was designed to assess the in vivo performance of new, thinner, virtually wall-less, venous cannulas designed for augmented venous drainage in comparison to traditional thin-wall cannulas.

Methods

Remote cannulation was realized in 5 bovine experiments (74.0 ± 2.4 kg) with percutaneous venous access over the wire, serial dilation up to 18 F and insertion of either traditional 19 F thin wall, wire-wound cannulas, or through the same access channel, new, thinner, virtually wall-less, braided cannulas designed for augmented venous drainage. A standard minimal extracorporeal circuit set with a centrifugal pump and a hollow fiber membrane oxygenator, but no inline reservoir was used. One hundred fifty pairs of pump-flow and required pump inlet pressure values were recorded with calibrated pressure transducers and a flowmeter calibrated by a volumetric tank and timer at increasing pump speed from 1500 RPM to 3500 RPM (500-RPM increments).

Results

Pump flow accounted for 1.73 ± 0.85 l/min for wall-less versus 1.17 ± 0.45 l/min for thin wall at 1500 RPM, 3.91 ± 0.86 versus 3.23 ± 0.66 at 2500 RPM, 5.82 ± 1.05 versus 4.96 ± 0.81 at 3500 RPM. Pump inlet pressure accounted for 9.6 ± 9.7 mm Hg versus 4.2 ± 18.8 mm Hg for 1500 RPM, −42.4 ± 26.7 versus −123 ± 51.1 at 2500 RPM, and −126.7 ± 55.3 versus −313 ±116.7 for 3500 RPM.

Conclusions

At the well-accepted pump inlet pressure of −80 mm Hg, the new, thinner, virtually wall-less, braided cannulas provide unmatched venous drainage in vivo. Early clinical analyses have confirmed these findings.

New Dual Lumen Self-Expanding Catheter Design Requiring Less Suction

Contribution of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (v-v ECMO) to gas transfer is flow dependent. Catheter design is a key factor for optimal pressure/flow rate relationship. This study was designed for the assessment of a new self-expanding dual lumen catheter design versus the current standard. Outlet pressure/flow rate and inlet pressure/flow rate for a new Smart catheter with self-expanding dual lumen design constricted to 27 F with 5 mm long constrictor corresponding to the percutaneous path versus Avalon 27 F catheter (control) were compared on a flow bench with a Biomedicus centrifugal pump. Flow, pump inlet pressure and outlet pressure were determined at 500, 1,000, 1,500, 2,000, and 2,500 revolutions per minute (RPM). At 500 RPM and with a 5 mm long constrictor (1,000; 1,500; 2,000; and 2,500 RPM), catheter outlet pressure values were -0.13 ± 0.07 mm Hg (-2.55 ± 0.06; -7.38 ± 0.14; -15.03 ± 0.44; -26.46 ± 0.39) for self-expanding versus -2.93 ± 0.23* (-10.60 ± 0.14; -22.74 ± 0.34; -38.43 ± 0.41; -58.25 ± 0.40)*: p < 0.0001* for control. The flow values were 0.61 ± 0.01 L/min (1.64 ± 0.03, 2.78 ± 0.02; 4.07 ± 0.04; 5.37 ± 0.02) for self-expanding versus 1.13 ± 0.06*; (2.19 ± 0.04; 3.30 ± 0.03; 4.30 ± 0.03; 5.30 ± 0.03)*: p < 0.0001* for control. The corresponding catheter inlet flow rates of the self-expanding catheter were slightly more than that of the control. For the given setup, our evaluation demonstrated that the new dual lumen self-expanding catheter requires lower catheter outlet pressures for higher flows as compared to the current standard.