This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Zadeh, B. J Articles by Krieger, K. H Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Zadeh, B. J Articles by Krieger, K. H Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A clinical evaluation of three modern blood oxygenators

The New York Hospital-Cornell University Medical Center, New York

Rose Holazo

The New York Hospital-Cornell University Medical Center, New York

Cathy Conlon

The New York Hospital-Cornell University Medical Center, New York

W Douglas Lazenby

The New York Hospital-Cornell University Medical Center, New York

O Wayne Isom

The New York Hospital-Cornell University Medical Center, New York

Karl H Krieger

The New York Hospital-Cornell University Medical Center, New York

The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of three standard oxygenators in a clinical setting. The oxygenators selected included the Bard H1700, the Bentley CM-50 and the Cobe CML. Fifty CPB procedures were performed on patients undergoing elective CABG procedures in each group and prospectively analysed. Patient related parameters were collected in three subsets: preoperative, operative and postoperative, and organized into a data base on a standard 'Clinfo' system. The groups were then compared for statistically significant differences. The three groups were similar in all demographic and patient management categories examined. Overall morbidity and mortality were not significantly different. Parameters in each of four major biocompatibility categories were found to differ significantly between the three groups. RBC and FFP use, maximum platelet decrease and maximum WBC increase were each improved in the CM L group as compared to the other two groups. The results indicate that the CML offers distinct biocompatibility advantages over the other two systems in several important blood component categories. Despite the slight user friendliness advantages of a bubbler system, we believe that the oxygenator of choice at present is the CML.

Perfusion, Vol. 2, No. 4, 263-270 (1987)
DOI: 10.1177/026765918700200404


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Blood Conservatio, V. A. Ferraris, S. P. Ferraris, S. P. Saha, E. A. Hessel II, C. K. Haan, B. D. Royston, C. R. Bridges, R. S.D. Higgins, G. Despotis, et al. Perioperative Blood Transfusion and Blood Conservation in Cardiac Surgery: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons and The Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Clinical Practice Guideline Ann. Thorac. Surg., May 1, 2007; 83(5_Supplement): S27 - S86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Mehra, A. Akins, A. Maisuria, and B. Glenville Air handling characteristics of five membrane oxygenators Perfusion, January 1, 1994; 9(5): 357 - 362. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. W Fried and J. Bell-Thomson Oxygen transfer performance of a new Sarns membrane oxygenator Perfusion, October 1, 1992; 7(4): 263 - 271. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. W Fried and J. Bell-Thomson Oxygen transfer efficiency of three microporous polypropylene membrane oxygenators Perfusion, April 1, 1991; 6(2): 105 - 114. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. Gourlay, J. Fleming, K. Taylor, and M. Aslam Evaluation of a range of extracorporeal membrane oxygenators Perfusion, April 1, 1990; 5(2): 117 - 133. [PDF]