www.uhasselt.be
DSpace

Document Server@UHasselt >
Research >
Research publications >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/24252

Title: A comparison between minimized extracorporeal circuits and conventional extracorporeal circuits in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery: is 'minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation' just low prime or closed loop perfusion ?
Authors: Starinieri, Pascal
Declercq, Peter E.
Robic, Boris
Yilmaz, Alaaddin
Van Tornout, Michiel
Dubois, Jasperina
Mees, Urbain
Hendrikx, Marc
Issue Date: 2017
Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
Citation: PERFUSION-UK, 32(5), p. 403-408
Abstract: Introduction: Even though results have been encouraging, an unequivocal conclusion on the beneficial effect of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery cannot be derived from previous publications. Long-term outcomes are rarely reported and a significant decrease in operative mortality has not been shown. Most studies have a limited number of patients and are underpowered. They merely report on short-term results of a heterogeneous intraoperative group using different types of ECC system in aortic valve surgery. The aim of the present study was to determine whether MiECC systems are more beneficial than conventional extracorporeal systems (CECC) with regard to mortality, hospital stay and inflammation and with only haemodilution and blood-air interface as differences. Methods: We retrospectively analysed data regarding mortality, hospital stay and inflammation in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve surgery. Forty patients were divided into two groups based on the type of extracorporeal system used; conventional (n=20) or MiECC (n=20). Results: Perioperative blood product requirements were significantly lower in the MiECC group (MiECC: 0.20.5 units vs CECC: 0.9 +/- 1.2 units, p=0.004). No differences were seen postoperatively regarding mortality (5% vs 5%, p=0.99), total length of hospital stay (10.6 +/- 7.2 days (MiECC) vs 12.1 +/- 5.9 days (CECC), p=0.39) or inflammation markers (CRP: MiECC: 7.09 +/- 13.62 mg/L vs CECC: 3.4 +/- 3.2 mg/L, p=0.89). Conclusion: MiECC provides circulatory support that is equally safe and feasible as conventional extracorporeal circuits. No differences in mortality, hospital stay or inflammation markers were observed.
Notes: [Starinieri, Pascal] Jessa Hosp, Dept Clin Perfus, Hasselt, Belgium. [Declercq, Peter E.] Jessa Hosp, Dept Lab Med, Hasselt, Belgium. [Declercq, Peter E.] Univ Leuven, Fac Pharmaceut Sci, Leuven, Belgium. [Robic, Boris; Yilmaz, Alaaddin; Mees, Urbain; Hendrikx, Marc] Jessa Hosp, Dept Cardiothorac Surg, Hasselt, Belgium. [Robic, Boris; Hendrikx, Marc] Hasselt Univ, Fac Med & Life Sci, Hasselt, Belgium. [Van Tornout, Michiel; Dubois, Jasperina] Jessa Hosp, Dept Anaesthesiol, Hasselt, Belgium.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/24252
DOI: 10.1177/0267659117691814
ISI #: 000402297200010
ISSN: 0267-6591
Category: A1
Type: Journal Contribution
Appears in Collections: Research publications

Files in This Item:

Description SizeFormat
Published version412.52 kBAdobe PDF

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.