Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

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 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 Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Pérez-Vela, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hernández-Rodríguez, I
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Pérez-Vela, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hernández-Rodríguez, I
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

research-article

ICU outcomes in adult cardiac surgery patients in relation to ultrafiltration type

JL Pérez-Vela

Intensive Care Department, Postoperative Cardiovascular Surgery Unit, University Hospital "12 de Octubre", Avda Andalucía Km 5,4, Madrid, Spain, ES-28.041

E Ruiz-Alonso

Cardiovascular Surgery Department, University Hospital "12 de Octubre", Avda Andalucía Km 5,4, Madrid, Spain, ES-28.041

F Guillén-Ramírez

Anesthesiology Department, University Hospital "12 de Octubre", Avda Andalucía Km 5,4, Madrid, Spain, ES-28.041

MT García-Maellas

Perfusion, Cardiovascular Surgery Department, University Hospital "12 de Octubre", Avda Andalucía Km 5,4, Madrid, Spain, ES-28.041

E Renes-Carreño

Intensive Care Department, Postoperative Cardiovascular Surgery Unit, University Hospital "12 de Octubre", Avda Andalucía Km 5,4, Madrid, Spain, ES-28.041

M Cerro-García

Perfusion, Cardiovascular Surgery Department, University Hospital "12 de Octubre", Avda Andalucía Km 5,4, Madrid, Spain, ES-28.041

J Cortina-Romero

Cardiovascular Surgery Department, University Hospital "12 de Octubre", Avda Andalucía Km 5,4, Madrid, Spain, ES-28.041

I Hernández-Rodríguez

Anesthesiology Department, University Hospital "12 de Octubre", Avda Andalucía Km 5,4, Madrid, Spain, ES-28.041

Ultrafiltration (UF) is used to ameliorate the deleterious effects of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in cardiac surgery patients. There are two different methods; conventional ultrafiltration (CUF), performed during CPB, and modified ultrafiltration (MUF), performed after CPB is finished. It has not been established which is better, and controversy remains regarding the optimal UF strategy. The objective of this study was to evaluate if MUF alone, or combined with CUF, could achieve greater fluid removal and contribute to better postoperative clinical outcomes. Also, the potential technique complications were studied. This was a prospective study which enrolled 125 consecutive adult patients receiving elective cardiac surgery with CPB. We analysed three treatment groups: MUF, CUF and both. Ultrafiltration was performed using a non-pulsatile CPB with a non-occlusive roller pump, Sarns 9000®, and a polysulfone ultrafilter, Minntech®. We studied pre- and intraoperative data and immediate postoperative clinical outcomes: total amount of drainage, transfusion needs, respiratory outcome, cardiac, renal and neurologic complications. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 11.0. All three groups were homogeneous and did not have differences in terms of demographic factors, previous history, risk scores, intervention and operative data. Volume of filtrate removal in the group which applied both techniques was larger than in the CUF or MUF groups alone (2569±823 vs 1679±651 vs 1398±353 ml, respectively, p=0.0001); however, despite this difference, there was no difference in the immediate postoperative fluid balances between the groups (596±1244 vs 880±1054 vs 986±1190 ml, p=0.30). Respiratory parameters and postoperative morbidity data analysed (total amount of drainage, transfusion needs, haemoglobin, acute lung injury, time with inotropes, ventricular failure, cardiogenic shock, neurologic complications and renal failure) were similar in all three groups, without statistical differences. Extubation time (10±7 vs 8.9±3 vs 9.4±7.9 hours, p=0.72) and ICU stay (56.6±72 vs 66.5±109 vs 44.2±25 hours, p=0.43) also were similar between the groups. We did not find any technique complication associated with any patient. In the present study, with adult patients receiving elective cardiac surgery, the combined ultrafiltration group had a larger fluid removal. However, neither type of ultrafiltration nor amount of filtered volume was accompanied by different postoperative ICU clinical outcomes. Ultrafiltration was considered a safe and reliable technique, with no related complications.

Perfusion, Vol. 23, No. 2, 79-87 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0267659108095167


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?