ICVTS Click here to goto Smart Canula website
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg 2009;9:583-587. doi:10.1510/icvts.2009.202804
© 2009 European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Andrea Colli
Right arrow Permission Requests
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Colli, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ruyra, X.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Colli, A.
Right arrow Articles by Ruyra, X.

Institutional report - Cardiopulmonary bypass

Aortic valve replacement with minimal extracorporeal circulation versus standard cardiopulmonary bypass

Andrea Colli*, Claudio Fernandez, Luis Delgado, Bernardo Romero, Maria Luisa Camara and Xavier Ruyra

Department of Cardiac Surgery, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujols, Ctra. Canyet Sn, 08916 Badalona, Barcelona, Spain

*Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-687-203754.

E-mail address: colli.andrea.bcn{at}gmail.com (A. Colli).

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and the clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) performed with minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (miniECC) technique vs. standard cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). From February 2006 to December 2007 a total of 181 isolated AVR were performed, of these 53 patients were operated using minimal extracorporeal circulation system and 128 patients were operated using the standard CPB. Demographic characteristics and operative data were similar in both groups except for EuroSCORE (P<0.0001). Operative mortality (<30 days) was 3.8% for miniECC group and 4.7% for CPB group (P=ns). Patients in both groups showed similar postoperative chest tube drainage (432±325 ml vs. 460±331 ml, P=ns). The percentage of transfused patients was similar in both groups (37.7% vs. 43.8%, P=0.45). The number of transfused blood bank products was higher in patients with a body surface area >1.7 m2 and who underwent traditional CPB in respect to miniECC system. Postoperatively renal injury, atrial fibrillation episodes, neurologic event rate, ICU and hospital stay length were similar in both groups. The miniECC is suitable for AVR providing good clinical results but the present results should not identify the miniECC system to be superior to the conventional CPB.

Key Words: Aortic valve replacement; Cardiopulmonary bypass; Minimal extracorporeal circulation







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS
Copyright © 2009 European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery