-
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg · Jul 2005
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialComparison of minimally invasive closed circuit extracorporeal circulation with conventional cardiopulmonary bypass and with off-pump technique in CABG patients: selected parameters of coagulation and inflammatory system.
- Jens Wippermann, Johannes M Albes, Martin Hartrumpf, Mirko Kaluza, Rüdiger Vollandt, Raimund Bruhin, and Thorsten Wahlers.
- Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Jena, Erlanger Allee 101, 07747 Jena-Lobeda, Germany. jens.wippermann@med.uni-jena.de
- Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005 Jul 1;28(1):127-32.
ObjectiveClosed circuit extracorporeal circulation (CCECC) has been developed to reduce deleterious effects of standard cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). This study compares the effects of CCECC (CORx system), CPB, and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) on red blood cell damage, coagulation activation, fibrinolysis and cytokine expression.MethodsThirty patients underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Twenty of them were randomized into two groups: CCECC (n = 10), CPB (n = 10). While not randomized, OPCAB (n = 10) served as a separate reference group. CCECC and CPB patients received cardioplegic arrest. Interleukin 6 (IL-6), free hemoglobin (fHb), von Willebrand factor activity (vWf), thrombin-antithrombin-III-complex (TATc), prothrombin fragment 1.2 (F 1+2) and plasmin-antiplasmin complex (PAPc) were assessed preoperatively, perioperatively and 24 h postoperatively.ResultsCCECC showed significantly lower red blood cell damage than CPB (fHb: CCECC, 7.1+/- 5.7 micromol/l; CPB, 16.8+/-11.4 micromol/l; P = 0.025; OPCAB, 3.4+/-1.1 micromol/l). Perioperatively, CCECC exhibited significantly lower activation of coagulation and fibrinolysis than CPB, but did not differ from OPCAB (vWf: CCECC, 133+/-52%; CPB, 241+/-128%; P = 0.052; OPCAB, 153+/-58%; TATc: CCECC, 4.7+/-0.9 ng/ml; CPB, 31.1+/-15.8 ng/ml; P < 0.001; OPCAB, 2.4+/-0.6 ng/ml; PAPc: CCECC, 214+/-30 ng/ml; CPB, 897+/-367 ng/ml; P < 0.001; OPCAB, 253+/-98 ng/ml). In contrast, fibrinolysis markers and IL-6 were markedly increased in CCECC postoperatively (PAPc: CCECC, 458+/-98 ng/ml; CPB, 159+/-128 ng/ml; P < 0.001; OPCAB, 262+/-174 ng/ml; IL-6: CCECC, 123.4+/-49.8 pg/dl; CPB, 18.8+/-13.1 pg/dl; P < 0.001; OPCAB, 31.6+/-26.2 pg/dl).ConclusionsCCECC for CABG is associated with a significant reduction of red blood cell damage and activation of coagulation cascades similar to OPCAB when compared with conventional CPB while a delayed fibrinolytic and inflammatory activity was observed. These findings require further investigation to verify the promising concept of CCECC.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.