体外循环过程中静脉插管方法是否影响气体栓塞负荷?

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Petronella Torild, Anna Corderfeldt Keiller, Tor Damén
{"title":"体外循环过程中静脉插管方法是否影响气体栓塞负荷?","authors":"Petronella Torild, Anna Corderfeldt Keiller, Tor Damén","doi":"10.1177/02676591251344859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionCardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is essential for cardiac surgery but poses risks, including gaseous micro emboli (GME). While the incidence of stroke-a common clinical consequence of embolism-ranges from 1-5% in cardiac surgery, prevalence of GME during CPB remain poorly understood.ObjectivesTo quantitatively compare GME incidence in the arterial line between cavoatrial and bicaval cannulation during open-heart surgery. Secondary exploratory objectives include evaluating the impact of venous reservoir volume on GME, and the correlation between GME in the venous and arterial lines.MethodsThis single center randomized controlled trial was conducted at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden. Patients ≥18 years undergoing planned aortic valve repair/replacement with cavoatrial cannulation, or mitral valve repair/replacement with bicaval cannulation, with or without coronary artery revascularization, were screened for eligibility. Patients were further randomized to either venous reservoir volume of ≥300 mL (control) or 200-300mL (intervention). GME detection was performed using GAMPT BCC300 with probes positioned at multiple locations within the CPB circuit.Results39 patients were included. No significant differences in GME quantity in the arterial line were observed between the cannulation methods (count p=.444; volume p=967). Similarly, no significant differences were found based on venous reservoir volume (count p=.074; volume p=.166). Furthermore, no significant correlation was observed between GME in venous line entering the arterial line (count p-value=492; volume p-value=.750). The CPB circuit effectively removed 99.14% of GME, with no adverse events reported.ConclusionNo significant differences were found in arterial GME count or volume between cavoatrial and bicaval cannulation during CPB. These findings underscore the importance of the bypass circuit's air-handling capacity, as well as the role of modern oxygenators and arterial line filters in effectively minimizing the passage of GME. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05820828URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05820828.</p>","PeriodicalId":49707,"journal":{"name":"Perfusion-Uk","volume":" ","pages":"2676591251344859"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the venous cannulation method affect gaseous embolic load to the patient during extracorporeal circulation?\",\"authors\":\"Petronella Torild, Anna Corderfeldt Keiller, Tor Damén\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02676591251344859\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>IntroductionCardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is essential for cardiac surgery but poses risks, including gaseous micro emboli (GME). While the incidence of stroke-a common clinical consequence of embolism-ranges from 1-5% in cardiac surgery, prevalence of GME during CPB remain poorly understood.ObjectivesTo quantitatively compare GME incidence in the arterial line between cavoatrial and bicaval cannulation during open-heart surgery. Secondary exploratory objectives include evaluating the impact of venous reservoir volume on GME, and the correlation between GME in the venous and arterial lines.MethodsThis single center randomized controlled trial was conducted at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden. Patients ≥18 years undergoing planned aortic valve repair/replacement with cavoatrial cannulation, or mitral valve repair/replacement with bicaval cannulation, with or without coronary artery revascularization, were screened for eligibility. Patients were further randomized to either venous reservoir volume of ≥300 mL (control) or 200-300mL (intervention). GME detection was performed using GAMPT BCC300 with probes positioned at multiple locations within the CPB circuit.Results39 patients were included. No significant differences in GME quantity in the arterial line were observed between the cannulation methods (count p=.444; volume p=967). Similarly, no significant differences were found based on venous reservoir volume (count p=.074; volume p=.166). Furthermore, no significant correlation was observed between GME in venous line entering the arterial line (count p-value=492; volume p-value=.750). The CPB circuit effectively removed 99.14% of GME, with no adverse events reported.ConclusionNo significant differences were found in arterial GME count or volume between cavoatrial and bicaval cannulation during CPB. These findings underscore the importance of the bypass circuit's air-handling capacity, as well as the role of modern oxygenators and arterial line filters in effectively minimizing the passage of GME. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05820828URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05820828.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perfusion-Uk\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2676591251344859\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perfusion-Uk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591251344859\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perfusion-Uk","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591251344859","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

体外循环(CPB)是心脏手术必不可少的,但存在风险,包括气体微栓塞(GME)。虽然心脏手术中中风(栓塞的常见临床后果)的发生率在1-5%之间,但CPB期间GME的患病率仍然知之甚少。目的定量比较心内直视手术中腔房导管与双腔导管之间动脉线GME的发生率。次要探索目标包括评估静脉储液池容积对GME的影响,以及静脉和动脉线GME之间的相关性。方法在瑞典Sahlgrenska大学医院进行单中心随机对照试验。≥18岁的患者计划接受腔房插管主动脉瓣修复/置换术,或二尖瓣修复/二尖瓣置换术,伴或不伴冠状动脉血运重建术。患者进一步随机分配到静脉储液器容量≥300 mL(对照组)或200-300mL(干预组)。GME检测使用GAMPT BCC300进行,探针位于CPB电路的多个位置。结果纳入39例患者。两种插管方法动脉线GME量无显著差异(p=.444;体积p = 967)。同样,基于静脉储液器容积,没有发现显著差异(计数p= 0.074;体积p = .166)。静脉线进入动脉线的GME无显著相关性(p值=492;体积假定值= .750)。CPB回路有效去除99.14%的GME,无不良事件报道。结论在CPB过程中,腔房插管与双腔插管在动脉GME计数和体积上无显著差异。这些发现强调了旁路处理空气能力的重要性,以及现代氧合器和动脉管路过滤器在有效减少GME通过方面的作用。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT05820828URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05820828。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does the venous cannulation method affect gaseous embolic load to the patient during extracorporeal circulation?

IntroductionCardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is essential for cardiac surgery but poses risks, including gaseous micro emboli (GME). While the incidence of stroke-a common clinical consequence of embolism-ranges from 1-5% in cardiac surgery, prevalence of GME during CPB remain poorly understood.ObjectivesTo quantitatively compare GME incidence in the arterial line between cavoatrial and bicaval cannulation during open-heart surgery. Secondary exploratory objectives include evaluating the impact of venous reservoir volume on GME, and the correlation between GME in the venous and arterial lines.MethodsThis single center randomized controlled trial was conducted at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden. Patients ≥18 years undergoing planned aortic valve repair/replacement with cavoatrial cannulation, or mitral valve repair/replacement with bicaval cannulation, with or without coronary artery revascularization, were screened for eligibility. Patients were further randomized to either venous reservoir volume of ≥300 mL (control) or 200-300mL (intervention). GME detection was performed using GAMPT BCC300 with probes positioned at multiple locations within the CPB circuit.Results39 patients were included. No significant differences in GME quantity in the arterial line were observed between the cannulation methods (count p=.444; volume p=967). Similarly, no significant differences were found based on venous reservoir volume (count p=.074; volume p=.166). Furthermore, no significant correlation was observed between GME in venous line entering the arterial line (count p-value=492; volume p-value=.750). The CPB circuit effectively removed 99.14% of GME, with no adverse events reported.ConclusionNo significant differences were found in arterial GME count or volume between cavoatrial and bicaval cannulation during CPB. These findings underscore the importance of the bypass circuit's air-handling capacity, as well as the role of modern oxygenators and arterial line filters in effectively minimizing the passage of GME. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05820828URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05820828.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perfusion-Uk
Perfusion-Uk 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
203
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Perfusion is an ISI-ranked, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, which provides current information on all aspects of perfusion, oxygenation and biocompatibility and their use in modern cardiac surgery. The journal is at the forefront of international research and development and presents an appropriately multidisciplinary approach to perfusion science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信