Chinese perfusion practice survey results in 2021: current situation and challenge
10.3760/cma.j.cn112434-20220220-00052
- VernacularTitle:2021年中国体外循环实践调查：现状与挑战
- Author:
Feng LIU
1
;
Yu JIANG
;
Xing HAO
;
Zhongtao DU
;
Xin LI
;
Bin LIU
;
Xiaohua ZHANG
;
Wei WANG
;
Zhenxiao JIN
;
Cun LONG
;
Yan LIU
;
Deming ZHU
;
Jiachun LI
;
Feilong HEI
;
Xiaotong HOU
Author Information
1. 首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院心脏危重症中心 体外循环及机械循环辅助科，北京 100029
- Keywords:
Cardiopulmonary bypass;
Perfusionist;
Practice survey
- From:
Chinese Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2022;38(9):537-542
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the current situation of cardiopulmonary bypass(CPB) in China and analyze the causes, to guide the formulation and implementation of technology standard.Methods:The survey task force sent out a nationwide survey to obtain up-to-date information on perfusion practice by ChSECC(Chinese Society of Extracorporeal Circulation). The unit of analysis for the survey was the medical center performs CPB. The survey consisted 48 questions covering four topics of qualifications, including certification and education, policies and practices, device and equipment, techniques used.Results:There were 540 of the 714 centers for an overall response rate of 76%. According to the annual number of CPB, they were divided into 4 groups: group A(≤50 cases/year), group B(50-100 cases/year), group C(100-500 cases/year) and group D(≥500 cases/year). The response rate of center with more than group D last year was 100%. Most of the perfusionists had certification issued by ChSECC. Although there were more than 80% of group D performed regular training and assessment of perfusionist, the result was still not ideal enough. Low utilization of safety equipment was not depend on the annual operation volume in most of responding centers. Ultrafiltration and blood protection technology had high application rate in group D compared with group A and B.Conclusion:The certification rate of perfusionists are high. Lower the number of annual CPB cases, lower the proportion of regular evaluation and training, and lower rate of standards performance. No matter the amount of CPB, the application rate of safety equipment is not ideal. Higher the number of CPB cases, higher the utilization rate of CPB related technologies.
