The Comparative Study of on Pump CABG during Pulsatile (T-PLS(TM)) and Nonpulsatile (Bio-pump(TM)) Perfusion.
- Author:
Young Woo PARK
1
;
Keun HER
;
Jae Ung LIM
;
Hwa Kyun SHIN
;
Yong Soon WON
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University, Korea. yswon@schbc.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Comparative Study ; Original Article
- Keywords:
Coronary artery bypass;
Cardiopulmonary bypass;
Pulsatile flow;
Perfusion
- MeSH:
Arrhythmias, Cardiac;
Arterial Pressure;
Blood Cells;
Blood Pressure;
Cardiopulmonary Bypass;
Coronary Artery Bypass;
Extracorporeal Circulation;
Heart-Lung Machine;
Humans;
Hypertension;
Infarction;
Lung Diseases, Obstructive;
Mortality;
Perfusion*;
Plasma;
Pulsatile Flow;
Renal Insufficiency;
Risk Assessment;
Risk Factors;
Smoke;
Smoking;
Transplants;
Ventilators, Mechanical
- From:The Korean Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2006;39(5):354-358
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Pulsatile pumps for extracorporeal circulation have been known to be better for tissue perfusion than non-pulsatile pumps but be detrimental to blood corpuscles. This study is intended to examine the risks and benefits of T-PLS(TM) through the comparison of clinical effects of T-PLS(TM) (pulsatile pump) and Bio-pump(TM) (non-pulsatile pump) used for coronary bypass surgery. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The comparison was made on 40 patients who had coronary bypass using T-PLS(TM) and Bio-pump(TM) (20 patients for each) from April 2003 to June 2005. All of the surgeries were operated on pump beating coronary artery bypass graft using cardiopulmonary extra-corporeal circulation. Risk factors before surgery and the condition during surgery and the results were compared. RESULT: There was no significant difference in age, gender ratio, and risk factors before surgery such as history of diabetes, hypertension, smoking, obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary infarction, and renal failure between the two groups. Surgery duration, hours of heart-lung machine operation, used shunt and grafted coronary branch were little different between the two groups. The two groups had a similar level of systolic arterial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure and mean arterial pressure, but pulse pressure was measured higher in the group with T-PLS(TM) (46+/-15 mmHg in T-PLS(TM) vs 35+/-13 mmHg in Bio-pump(TM), p<0.05). The T-PLS(TM)-operated patients tended to produce more urine volume during surgery, but the difference was not statistically significant (9.7+/-3.9 cc/min in T-PLS(TM) vs 8.9+/-3.6 cc/min in Bio-pump(TM), p=0.20). There was no significant difference in mean duration of respirator usage and 24-hour blood loss after surgery between the two groups. Plasma free Hb was measured lower in the group with T-PLS(TM) (24.5+/-21.7 mg/dL in T-PLS(TM) versus 46.8+/-23.0 mg/dL in Bio-pump(TM), p<0.05). There was no significant difference in coronary infarction, arrhythmia, renal failure and morbidity rate of cerebrovascular disease. There was a case of death after surgery (death rate of 5%) in the group tested with T-PLS(TM), but the death rate was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Coronary bypass was operated with T-PLS(TM) (Pulsatile flow pump) using a heart-lung machine. There was no unexpected event caused by mechanical error during surgery, and the clinical process of the surgery was the same as the surgery for which Bio-pump(TM) was used. In addition, T-PLS(TM) used surgery was found to be less detrimental to blood corpuscles than the pulsatile flow has been known to be. Authors of this study could confirm the safety of T-PLS(TM).
