Does the venous cannulation method affect gaseous embolic load to the patient during extracorporeal circulation?

Abstract

Introduction

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is essential for cardiac surgery but poses risks, including gaseous micro emboli (GME). While the incidence of stroke—a common clinical consequence of embolism—ranges from 1-5% in cardiac surgery, prevalence of GME during CPB remain poorly understood.

Objectives

To quantitatively compare GME incidence in the arterial line between cavoatrial and bicaval cannulation during open-heart surgery. Secondary exploratory objectives include evaluating the impact of venous reservoir volume on GME, and the correlation between GME in the venous and arterial lines.

Methods

This single center randomized controlled trial was conducted at Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden. Patients ≥18 years undergoing planned aortic valve repair/replacement with cavoatrial cannulation, or mitral valve repair/replacement with bicaval cannulation, with or without coronary artery revascularization, were screened for eligibility. Patients were further randomized to either venous reservoir volume of ≥300 mL (control) or 200–300mL (intervention). GME detection was performed using GAMPT BCC300 with probes positioned at multiple locations within the CPB circuit.

Results

39 patients were included. No significant differences in GME quantity in the arterial line were observed between the cannulation methods (count p=.444; volume p=967). Similarly, no significant differences were found based on venous reservoir volume (count p=.074; volume p=.166). Furthermore, no significant correlation was observed between GME in venous line entering the arterial line (count p-value=492; volume p-value=.750). The CPB circuit effectively removed 99.14% of GME, with no adverse events reported.

Conclusion

No significant differences were found in arterial GME count or volume between cavoatrial and bicaval cannulation during CPB. These findings underscore the importance of the bypass circuit's air-handling capacity, as well as the role of modern oxygenators and arterial line filters in effectively minimizing the passage of GME. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05820828URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05820828

Keywords

Bubble detector Cannulation Extracorporeal circulation Gaseous micro emboli Open heart surgery

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Zanatta

Forti

Minniti

, et al. Brain emboli distribution and differentiation during cardiopulmonary bypass. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2013; 27: 865–875.

Rodriguez

Rubens

Belway

, et al. Residual air in the venous cannula increases cerebral embolization at the onset of cardiopulmonary bypass. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg 2006; 29: 175–180.

Borger

Feindel

. Cerebral emboli during cardiopulmonary bypass: effect of perfusionist interventions and aortic cannulas. J Extra Corpor Technol 2002; 34: 29–33.

Rodriguez

Williams

Babaev

, et al. Effect of perfusionist technique on cerebral embolization during cardiopulmonary bypass. Perfusion 2005; 20: 3–10.

Gaudino

Rahouma

Di Mauro

, et al. Early versus delayed stroke after cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc 2019; 8: e012447.

Jonsson

Barbu

Nielsen

, et al. Perioperative stroke and survival in coronary artery bypass grafting patients: a SWEDEHEART study. Eur J Cardio Thorac Surg 2022; 62: ezac025.

Kurusz

Butler

. Bubbles and bypass: an update. Perfusion 2004; 19(Suppl 1): S49–S55.

Taylor

Borger

Weisel

, et al. Cerebral microemboli during cardiopulmonary bypass: increased emboli during perfusionist interventions. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 68: 89–93.

Punjabi

Taylor

. The science and practice of cardiopulmonary bypass: from cross circulation to ECMO and SIRS. Glob Cardiol Sci Pract 2013; 2013: 249–260.

10.

Chikwe

Cooke

Weiss

. Cardiopulmonary bypass. OSH cardiothoracic surgery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 101–126.

11.

Liu

Newland

Tully

, et al. In vitro evaluation of gaseous microemboli handling of cardiopulmonary bypass circuits with and without integrated arterial line filters. J Extra Corpor Technol 2011; 43: 107–114.

12.

Patel

Banahan

Janus

, et al. Neurological impact of emboli during adult cardiac surgery. J Neurol Sci 2020; 416: 117006.

13.

Nielsen

Funder

Jensen

, et al. Influence of venous reservoir level on microbubbles in cardiopulmonary bypass. Perfusion 2008; 23: 347–353.

14.

Norman

Sistino

Acsell

. The effectiveness of low-prime cardiopulmonary bypass circuits at removing gaseous emboli. J Extra Corpor Technol 2004; 36: 336–342.

15.

Lynch

Wells

Akers

, et al. Monitoring microemboli during cardiopulmonary bypass with the EDAC quantifier. J Extra Corpor Technol 2010; 42: 212–218.

16.

Benim

Frank

Assmann

, et al. Computational investigation of hemodynamics in hardshell venous reservoirs: a comparative study. Artif Organs 2020; 44: 411–418.

17.

Rodriguez

Belway

. Comparison of two different extracorporeal circuits on cerebral embolization during cardiopulmonary bypass in children. Perfusion 2006; 21: 247–253.

18.

Willcox

Mitchell

Gorman

. Venous air in the bypass circuit: a source of arterial line emboli exacerbated by vacuum-assisted drainage. Ann Thorac Surg 1999; 68: 1285–1289.

19.

Jones

Deal

Vernon

, et al.

How effective are cardiopulmonary bypass circuits at removing gaseous microemboli?

J Extra Corpor Technol 2002; 34: 34–39.

20.

Stammers

Miller

Francis

, et al. Goal-directed perfusion methodology for determining oxygenator performance during clinical cardiopulmonary bypass. J Extra Corpor Technol 2017; 49: 81–92.

21.

Segers

Stehouwer

de Somer

, et al. Optical verification and in-vitro characterization of two commercially available acoustic bubble counters for cardiopulmonary bypass systems. Perfusion 2018; 33: 16–24.

22.

Nollert

Schwabenland

Maktav

, et al. Miniaturized cardiopulmonary bypass in coronary artery bypass surgery: marginal impact on inflammation and coagulation but loss of safety margins. Ann Thorac Surg 2005; 80: 2326–2332.