Impact of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation on the need of red blood cell transfusion

Abstract

Objective:

Minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation may decrease the need of packed red blood cell transfusions and reduce hemodilution during cardiopulmonary bypass. However, more data are needed on the effects of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation in more complex cardiac procedures. We compared minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation and conventional extracorporeal circulation methods of cardiopulmonary bypass.

Methods:

A total of 424 patients in the minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation group and 844 patients in the conventional extracorporeal circulation group undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting and more complex cardiac surgery were evaluated. Age, sex, type of surgery, and duration of perfusion were used as matching criteria. Hemoglobin <80 g/L was used as red blood cell transfusion trigger. The primary endpoint was the use of red blood cells during the day of operation and the five postoperative days. Secondary endpoints were hemodilution (hemoglobin drop after the onset of perfusion) and postoperative bleeding from the chest tubes during the first 12 hours after the operation.

Results:

Red blood cell transfusions were needed less often in the minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation group compared to the conventional extracorporeal circulation group (26.4% vs. 33.4%, p = 0.011, odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.93), especially in coronary artery bypass grafting subgroup (21.3% vs. 35.1%, p < 0.001, odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.35-0.73). Hemoglobin drop after onset of perfusion was also lower in the minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation group than in the conventional extracorporeal circulation group (24.2 ± 8.5% vs. 32.6 ± 12.6%, p < 0.001). Postoperative bleeding from the chest tube did not differ between the groups (p = 0.808).

Conclusion:

Minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation reduced the need of red blood cell transfusions and hemoglobin drop when compared to the conventional extracorporeal circulation group. This may have implications when choosing the perfusion method in cardiac surgery.

Keywords

minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation transfusion packed red blood cells hemodilution hemoglobin drop

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Kilic

Whitman

GJ.

Blood transfusions in cardiac surgery: indications, risks, and conservation strategies. Ann Thorac Surg 2014; 97: 726–734.

Murphy

Reeves

Rogers

et al. Increased mortality, postoperative morbidity and cost after red blood cell transfusion in patient having cardiac surgery. Circulation 2007; 116: 2544–2552.

Koch

Duncan

et al. Morbidity and mortality risk associated with red blood cell and blood-component transfusion in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: 1608–1616.

Karkouti

Beattie

Wijeysundera

et al. Hemodilution during cardiopulmonary bypass is an independent risk factor for acute renal failure in adult cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005; 129: 391–400.

Karkouti

Djaiani

Borger

et al. Low hematocrit during cardiopulmonary bypass is associated with increased risk of perioperative stroke in cardiac surgery. 2005; 80: 1381–1387.

Habib

Zacharias

Schwann

et al. Adverse effects of low hematocrit during cardiopulmonary bypass in the adult: should current practice be changed. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003; 125: 1438–1450.

Anastasiadis

Murkin

Antonitsis

et al. Use of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation in cardiac surgery: principles, definitions and potential benefits: a position paper from the Minimal invasive Extra-Corporeal Technologies international Society (MiECTiS). Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2016; 22: 647–662.

Anastasiadis

Antonitsis

Argiriadou

et al. Modular minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation systems; can they become the standard practice for performing cardiac surgery. Perfusion 2015; 30: 195–200.

Joffe

Rosenbaum

PR.

Invited commentary: propensity scores. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 150: 327–333.

10.

Pai

Paloucek

The origin of the “ideal” body weight equations. Ann Pharmacother 2000; 34: 1066–1069.

11.

Devine

BJ.

Gentamicin therapy. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1974; 8: 650–655.

12.

Dyke

Aronson

Dietrich

et al. Universal definition of perioperative bleeding in adult cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147: 1458–1463. e1.

13.

Rosenbaum

Rubin

DB.

The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41–55.

14.

Pearson

Guthrie

Simpson

et al. Interpretation of measured red cell mass and plasma volume in adults: expert panel on radionuclides of the international council for standardization in haematology. Br J Haematol 1995; 89: 748–756.

15.

Biancari

Tauriainen

Perrotti

et al. Bleeding, transfusion and the risk of stroke after coronary surgery: a prospective cohort study of 2,357 patients. Int J Surg 2016; 32: 50–57.

16.

Anastasiadis

Antonitsis

Haidich

et al. Use of minimal extracorporeal circulation improves outcome after heart surgery; a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol 2013; 164: 158–169.

17.

Harling

Warren

Martin

et al. Do miniaturized extracorporeal circuits confer significant clinical benefit without compromising safety? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. ASAIO J 2011; 57: 141–151.

18.

Zangrillo

Garozzo

Biondi-Zoccai

et al. Miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass improves short-term outcome in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010; 139: 1162–1169.

19.

Benedetto

Angeloni

Refice

et al. Is minimized extracorporeal circulation effective to reduce the need for red blood cell transfusion in coronary artery bypass grafting? Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 138: 1450–1453.

20.

El-Essawi

Hajek

Skorpil

et al. Are minimized perfusion circuits the better heart lung machines? Final results of a prospective randomized multicentre study. Perfusion 2011; 26: 470–478.

21.

Pagano

Milojevic

Meesters

et al. 2017 EACTS/EACTA guidelines on patient blood management for adult cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2018; 53: 79–111.

22.

Ranucci

Conti

Castelvecchio

et al. Hematocrit on cardiopulmonary bypass and outcome after coronary surgery in nontransfused patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 89: 11–17.

23.

Kulier

Levin

Moser

et al. Impact of preoperative anemia on outcome in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 2007; 116: 471–479.

24.

Remadi

Rakotoarivelo

Marticho

et al. Prospective randomized study comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with the new mini-extracorporeal circulation Jostra System or with a standard cardiopulmonary bypass. Am Heart J 2006; 151: 198. e1–e7.

25.

Abdel-Rahman

Ozaslan

Risteski

et al. Initial experience with a minimized extracorporeal bypass system: is there a clinical benefit. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80: 238–243.

26.

Sakwa

Emery

Shannon

et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting with a minimized cardiopulmonary bypass circuit: a prospective, randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137: 481–485.

27.

Anastasiadis

Asteriou

Deliopoulos

et al. Haematological effects of minimized compared to conventional extracorporeal circulation after coronary revascularization procedures. Perfusion 2010; 25: 197–203.

28.

Remadi

Rakotoarivello

Marticho

et al. Aortic valve replacement with the minimal extracorporeal circulation (Jostra MECC System) versus standard cardiopulmonary bypass: a randomized prospective trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004; 128: 436–441.

29.

Sjatskig

Yilmaz

van Boven

et al. Feasibility of mitral valve surgery using minimal extracorporeal circulation. Perfusion 2012; 27: 264–268.

30.

Nilsson

Scicluna

Malmkvist

et al. A randomized study of coronary artery bypass surgery performed with the Resting HeartTM System utilizing a low vs a standard dosage of heparin. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2012; 15: 834–839.