Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

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
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
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 Harrison, D.
Right arrow Articles by Munsch, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Harrison, D.
Right arrow Articles by Munsch, C.
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?

Clinical evaluation of heat exchangers for blood cardioplegia

DP Harrison

Cardiothoracic Surgical Unit, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds

CM Munsch

Cardiothoracic Surgical Unit, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds

We compared, in clinical usage, four commercially available heat exchanger systems for blood cardioplegia (BCP) delivery: Shiley BCD plus (BCD); Gish Straight Shot (Gish); Sarns Conducer (Sarns); and the Dideco D720C Helios (Dideco). Ten units of each model were evaluated during coronary artery surgery in which myocardial protection was provided by intermittent cold BCP and warm BCP reperfusion. The performance of each device was tested by (1) determination of actual cardioplegia delivery temperature and (2) by calculation of efficiency (E) of the heat exchanger. The BCD, Gish and Dideco were all able to cool BCP well below 10°C satisfactorily, but the Sarns was unable to do this consistently. During cooling E was as follows: BCD 0.78 ± 0.06; Gish 0.79 ± 0.03; Sarns 0.66 ± 0.05; Dideco 0.75 ± 0.05. During rewarming E was: BCD 0.75 ± 0.04; Gish 0.73 ± 0.06; Sarns 0.48 ± 0.05; Dideco 0.53 ± 0.09. Data are the mean ± standard error. The Sarns was significantly less efficient than all the other three devices (p < 0.05 in all cases) during cooling and less efficient than the BCD and the Gish during rewarming. We are unable to recommend the use of the Sarns in clinical practice. In addition to having acceptable performance, the BCD was the easiest and safest model to prime and to use. The BCD remains our preferred heat exchanger for BCP delivery

Perfusion, Vol. 8, No. 5, 393-400 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/026765919300800506
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?