Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Perfusion
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ündar, A.
Right arrow Articles by Myers, J. L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ündar, A.
Right arrow Articles by Myers, J. L
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparison of hollow-fiber membrane oxygenators with different perfusion modes during normothermic and hypothermic CPB in a simulated neonatal model

Akif Ündar

Department of Pediatrics, Department of Bioengineering, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA, aundar{at}psu.edu

Bingyang Ji

Department of Pediatrics, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

Branka Lukic

Department of Surgery, Department of Bioenginnering, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

Conrad M Zapanta

Department of Surgery, Department of Bioenginnering, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

Allen R Kunselman

Department of Health Evaluation Sciences, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

John D Reibson

Department of Surgery, Department of Bioenginnering, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

Tigran Khalapyan

Department of Surgery, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

Larry Baer

Department of Surgery, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

William J Weiss

Department of Surgery, Department of Bioenginnering, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

Gerson Rosenberg

Department of Surgery, Department of Bioenginnering, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

John L Myers

Department of Pediatrics, Department of Surgery, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA

Purpose: The objectives of this investigation were (1) to compare two hollow-fiber membrane oxygenators (Capiox Baby RX versus Lilliput 1-D901) in terms of pressure drops and surplus hemodynamic energy (SHE) during normothermic and hypothermic cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in a simulated neonatal model; and (2) to evaluate pulsatile and non-pulsatile perfusion modes for each oxygenator in terms of SHE levels.

Methods: In a simulated patient, CPB was initiated at a constant pump flow rate of 500 mL/min. The circuit was primed with fresh bovine blood. After 5 min of normothermic CPB, the pseudo-patient was cooled down to 25°C for 10 min followed by 30 min of hypothermic CPB. The pseudo-patient then underwent 10 min of rewarming and 5 min of normothermic CPB. At each experimental site (pre- and post-oxygenator and pre-aortic cannula), SHE was calculated using the following formula {SHE (ergs/cm3) = 1332 [((ffpdt)/(ffdt))-mean arterial pressure]} (f = pump flow and p = pressure). A linear mixed-effects model that accounts for the correlation among repeated measurements was fit to the data to assess differences in SHE between oxygenators, pumps, and sites. Tukey’s multiple comparison procedure was used to adjust p-values for post-hoc pairwise comparisons.

Results: The pressure drops in the Capiox group compared to the Lilliput group were significantly lower during hypothermic non-pulsatile (21.3{mp}0.5 versus 50.7{mp}0.9 mmHg, p B < 0.001) and pulsatile (22{mp}0.0 versus 53.3{mp}0.5 mmHg, p < 0.001) perfusion, respectively. Surplus hemodynamic energy levels were significantly higher in the pulsatile group compared to the non-pulsatile group, with Capiox (1655{mp}92 versus 10 008{mp}1370 ergs/cm3, p < 0.001) or Lilliput (1506{mp}112 versus 7531{mp}483 ergs/cm3, p < 0.001) oxygenators. During normothermic CPB, both oxygenators had patterns similar to those observed under hypothermic conditions.

Conclusions: The Capiox oxygenator had a significantly lower pressure drop in both pulsatile and non-pulsatile perfusion modes. For each oxygenator, the SHE levels were significantly higher in the pulsatile mode.

Perfusion, Vol. 21, No. 6, 381-390 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0267659106073996
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?