Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|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.
Van Tornout, Michiel
|Issue Date:||2017||Publisher:||SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD||Source:||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.||Keywords:||MiECC; aortic valve surgery; minimally invasive surgery;MiECC; aortic valve surgery; minimally invasive surgery||Document URI:||http://hdl.handle.net/1942/24252||ISSN:||0267-6591||e-ISSN:||1477-111X||DOI:||10.1177/0267659117691814||ISI #:||000402297200010||Rights:||© The Author(s) 2017||Category:||A1||Type:||Journal Contribution||Validations:||ecoom 2018|
|Appears in Collections:||Research publications|
Show full item record
Files in This Item:
|Published version||412.52 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open Request a copy|
checked on Sep 3, 2020
WEB OF SCIENCETM
checked on May 22, 2022
checked on May 20, 2022
checked on May 20, 2022
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.