Minimal extracorporeal circulation (MECC) does not result in less hypertrophic scar formation as compared to conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) with dexamethasone
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2014
Minimal extracorporeal circulation (MECC) does not result in less hypertrophic scar formation as compared to conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) with dexamethasone
Cardiopulmonary bypass surgery is associated with a systemic inflammatory response through the interaction of air, blood and synthetic components in the bypass system and the physical trauma of surgery. An alternative cardiopulmonary bypass system, minimal extracorporeal circulation (MECC), has shown promising results in terms of reducing the inflammatory response. We hypothesized that this system may reduce pathological excessive scarring. To study this assumption, the effects of MECC and the effects of conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) with dexamethasone on skin scarring were compared in a standardized wound-healing model.
Methods and Results:
Pre-sternal scars were evaluated prospectively at four and 12 months postoperatively. The height and width of the scars were measured, using a slide caliper and sonography. The scars were scored using the validated Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Additional risk factors for hypertrophic scar formation were identified by means of a questionnaire.
During surgery, MECC was used in 45 patients and CECC/dexamethasone in 42 patients. Four months postoperatively, 22 patients of the MECC group (49%) and 18 patients in the CECC/dexamethasone group (43%) had developed hypertrophic scars. Twelve months postoperatively, the hypertrophic scars in four patients of the MECC group and in two patients of the CECC/dexamethasone group had become normotrophic. In 18 patients of the MECC group (38%) and 16 patients of the CECC group (41%) the scars remained hypertrophic at 12 months. These differences between the two groups were not statistically significant.
Conclusion:
MECC does not reduce hypertrophic scar formation compared with CECC with dexamethasone, but its use is more beneficial than the use of CECC/dexamethasone because of the circulatory and immunological advantages and because treatment with dexamethasone can be omitted.
NiessenFBSpauwenPHSchalkwijkJ, et al. On the nature of hypertrophic scars and keloids: a review. Plast Reconstr Surg1999; 104: 1435–1458.
4.
PeacockEEJr.MaddenJWTrierWC. Biologic basis for the treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars. South Med J1970; 63: 755–760.
5.
van der VeerWMBloemenMCTUlrichMW, et al. Potential cellular and molecular causes of hypertrophic scar formation. Burns2009; 35: 15–29.
6.
BloemenMCvan der VeerWMUlrichMMvan ZuijlenPPNiessenFBMiddelkoopE. Prevention and curative management of hypertrophic scar formation. Burns2009; 35: 463–475.
7.
GundrySRRomanoMAShattuckOH, et al. Seven-year follow-up of coronary artery bypasses performed with and without cardiopulmonary bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg1998; 115: 1273–1277.
8.
PenttilaHJLepojarviMVKiviluomaKT, et al. Myocardial preservation during coronary surgery with and without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg2001; 71: 565–571.
9.
ChangPPSussmanMSConteJV, et al. Postoperative ventricular function and cardiac enzymes after on-pump versus off-pump CABG surgery. Am J Cardiol2002; 89: 1107–1110.
10.
LevyJHTanakaKA. Inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg2003; 75: S715-S720.
11.
RoachGWKanchugerMManganoCM, et al. Adverse cerebral outcomes after coronary bypass surgery. Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia Research Group and the Ischemia Research and Education Foundation Investigators. N Engl J Med1996; 335: 1857–1863.
12.
KarinM. New twists in gene regulation by glucocorticoid receptor: is DNA binding dispensable?Cell1998; 93: 487–490.
13.
ManuskiattiWFitzpatrickRE. Treatment response of keloidal and hypertrophic sternotomy scars: comparison among intralesional corticosteroid, 5-fluorouracil, and 585-nm flashlamp-pumped pulsed-dye laser treatments. Arch Dermatol2002; 138: 1149–1155.
14.
MustoeTACooterRDGoldMH, et al. International clinical recommendations on scar management. Plast Reconstr Surg2002; 110: 560–571.
15.
SherrisDALarrabeeWFJr.MurakamiCS. Management of scar contractures, hypertrophic scars, and keloids. Otolaryngol Clin North Am1995; 28: 1057–1068.
16.
van der VeerWMFerreiraJAde JongEH, et al. Perioperative conditions affect long-term hypertrophic scar formation. Ann Plast Surg2010; 65: 321–325.
17.
FromesYGaillardDPonzioO, et al. Reduction of the inflammatory response following coronary bypass grafting with total minimal extracorporeal circulation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2002; 22: 527–533.
18.
RemadiJPRakotoariveloZMartichoPBenamarA. Prospective randomized study comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with the new mini-extracorporeal circulation Jostra System or with a standard cardiopulmonary bypass. Am Heart J2006; 151: 198.
19.
van BovenWJGerritsenWBWaandersFG, et al. Mini extracorporeal circuit for coronary artery bypass grafting: initial clinical and biochemical results: a comparison with conventional and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafts concerning global oxidative stress and alveolar function. Perfusion2004; 19: 239–246.
20.
WiesenackCLieboldAPhilippA, et al. Four years’ experience with a miniaturized extracorporeal circulation system and its influence on clinical outcome. Artif Organs2004; 28: 1082–1088.
21.
PerthelMKseibiSSagebielF, et al. Comparison of conventional extracorporeal circulation and minimal extracorporeal circulation with respect to microbubbles and microembolic signals. Perfusion2005; 20: 329–333.
22.
ImmerFFAckermannAGygaxE, et al. Minimal extracorporeal circulation is a promising technique for coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg2007; 84: 1515–1520.
23.
TiLKGohBLWongPS, et al. Comparison of mini-cardiopulmonary bypass system with air-purge device to conventional bypass system. Ann Thorac Surg2008; 85: 994–1000.
24.
BeghiCNicoliniFAgostinelliA, et al. Mini-cardiopulmonary bypass system: results of a prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg2006; 81: 1396–1400.
25.
RemadiJPMartichoPButoiI, et al. Clinical experience with the mini-extracorporeal circulation system: an evolution or a revolution?Ann Thorac Surg2004; 77: 2172–2175.
26.
StehouwerMCBoersCde VroegeR, et al. Clinical evaluation of the air removal characteristics of an oxygenator with integrated arterial filter in a minimized extracorporeal circuit. Int J Artif Organs2011; 34: 374–382.
27.
van de KarALCorionLUSmeuldersMJ, et al. Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Plast Reconstr Surg2005; 116: 514–522. www.posas.org
28.
HaneyaAPhilippASchmidC, et al. Minimised versus conventional cardiopulmonary bypass: outcome of high-risk patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2009; 36: 844–848.
29.
VohraHAWhistanceRModiAOhriS. The inflammatory response to miniaturised extracorporeal circulation: a review of the literature. Mediators of Inflammation2009; doi:10.1155/2009/707042.
30.
AscioneRLloydCTUnderwoodMJ, et al. Inflammatory response after coronary revascularization with or without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg2000; 69: 1198–1204.
31.
el HabbalMHSmithLJElliottMJ, et al. Cardiopulmonary bypass tubes and prime solutions stimulate neutrophil adhesion molecules. Cardiovasc Res1997; 33: 209–215.
32.
PaparellaDYauTMYoungE. Cardiopulmonary bypass induced inflammation: pathophysiology and treatment. An update. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg2002; 21: 232–244.
33.
KofidisTBarakiHSinghH, et al. The minimized extracorporeal circulation system causes less inflammation and organ damage. Perfusion2008; 23: 147–51.
34.
OhataTMitsunoMYamamuraM, et al. Minimal cardiopulmonary bypass attenuates neutrophil activation and cytokine release in coronary artery bypass grafting. J Artif Organs2007; 10: 92–95.
35.
van BovenWJGerritsenWBZanenP, et al. Pneumoproteins as a lung-specific biomarker of alveolar permeability in conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery vs mini-extracorporeal circuit: a pilot study. Chest2005; 127: 1190–1195.
36.
FarnetiPASbranaSSpillerD, et al. Reduction of blood coagulation and monocyte-platelet interaction following the use of a minimal extracorporeal circulation system (Synergy) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Perfusion2008; 23: 49–56.
37.
McGuinessWVellaEHarrisonD. Influence of dressing changes on wound temperature. J Wound Care2004; 13: 383–385.
38.
UreBMNiewoldTABaxNMHamMvan der ZeeDCEssenGJ. Peritoneal, systemic, and distant organ inflammatory response are reduced by a laparoscopic approach and carbon dioxide versus air. Surg Encosc2002; 16: 836–842.
39.
PajuloOTPulkkiKJAlanenMS, et al. Duration of surgery and patient age affect wound healing in children. Wound Repair Regen2000; 8: 174–178.
40.
PuehlerTHaneyaAPhilippA, et al. Minimal extracorporeal circulation: an alternative for on-pump and off-pump coronary revascularization. Ann Thorac Surg2009; 87: 766–772.
41.
TruongPTLeeJCSoerBGaulCAOlivottoIA. Reliability and validity testing of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale in evaluating linear scars after breast cancer surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg2007; 119: 487–494.
42.
FearmontiRBondJErdmannDLevinsonH. A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty2010; 10: e43.
43.
DielemanJMNierichAPRosseelPM, et al: Intraoperative high-dose dexamethasone for cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA2012; 308: 1761–1767.
