Assisted venous drainage on cardiopulmonary bypass for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: is it necessary, useful or desirable?

Assisted venous drainage (AVD) is considered an essential component of the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) circuit for minimal access aortic valve replacement (mAVR). The rationale/necessity for AVD in every patient has not been fully elucidated. Data from consecutive patients undergoing isolated first...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery 2010-06, Vol.10 (6), p.868-871
Hauptverfasser: Vaughan, Paul, Fenwick, Natasha, Kumar, Pankaj
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 871
container_issue 6
container_start_page 868
container_title Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery
container_volume 10
creator Vaughan, Paul
Fenwick, Natasha
Kumar, Pankaj
description Assisted venous drainage (AVD) is considered an essential component of the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) circuit for minimal access aortic valve replacement (mAVR). The rationale/necessity for AVD in every patient has not been fully elucidated. Data from consecutive patients undergoing isolated first-time mAVR by a single surgeon from March 2006 to October 2008 was prospectively collected. All cases were cannulated centrally. Venous drainage was by a three-stage cannula (Medtronic MC2X) via the right atrial appendage. AVD was utilised intraoperatively at the discretion of the perfusionist and/or surgeon to maintain the required flow rate. Pre- and perioperative data were compared between the two groups. Fifty-seven patients underwent mAVR. Twenty-nine did not require assistance (AVD-), 28 did (AVD+). There were no significant differences between the two groups' age, sex distribution, body mass index and risk stratification data. Patients who required AVD had significantly higher body surface areas (BSAs) [1.93 m(2) (1.56-2.46) vs. 1.79 m(2) (1.41-2.26), P=0.03] and consequent higher CPB flow required [4.62 l/min (3.74-5.90) vs. 4.29 l/min (3.38-5.42), P=0.03]. Patients who required AVD tended to have longer ischaemic times [79.5 min (48-135) vs. 69 min (47-126), P=0.06]. AVD during mAVR is not necessary in every patient. We found it to be necessary in patients with higher BSA (consequently requiring a higher flow rate on CPB).
doi_str_mv 10.1510/icvts.2009.230888
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733534777</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>733534777</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-cc0eacf31c63c57745160c57eab940faa8c5bb398b468d2d7e699e2aa81455093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9UcFK7TAQDaKoT_0AN5KdG-81aZq2cSMi-t4DwY2uyzSdSiRNa6Yt3E_wr41edTVnhnMOzDmMnUqxllqKS2eXidaZEGadKVFV1Q47lLowK5NVevcXG3XA_hC9CiGNUGKfHWQiU1IJc8jeb4gcTdjyBcMwE28juAAvyIfALcTWDePs-yFA3PBmMwIR74bIexdcD95vuAsLkFuQwxAnZ_kCPi0RRw8WewzTFXfE3cQDWiRKPhd8Juxmz5NPi-QiNB6vj9leB57w5Hsesef7u6fbf6uHx7__b28eVlblalpZKxBsp6QtlNVlmWtZiAQQGpOLDqCyummUqZq8qNqsLbEwBrN0l7nWwqgjdr71HePwNiNNde_IovcQMAVQl0pplZdlmZhyy7RxIIrY1WNMT8dNLUX9WUD9VUD9WUC9LSBpzr7d56bH9lfxk7j6AHJVhh0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>733534777</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assisted venous drainage on cardiopulmonary bypass for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: is it necessary, useful or desirable?</title><source>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Vaughan, Paul ; Fenwick, Natasha ; Kumar, Pankaj</creator><creatorcontrib>Vaughan, Paul ; Fenwick, Natasha ; Kumar, Pankaj</creatorcontrib><description>Assisted venous drainage (AVD) is considered an essential component of the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) circuit for minimal access aortic valve replacement (mAVR). The rationale/necessity for AVD in every patient has not been fully elucidated. Data from consecutive patients undergoing isolated first-time mAVR by a single surgeon from March 2006 to October 2008 was prospectively collected. All cases were cannulated centrally. Venous drainage was by a three-stage cannula (Medtronic MC2X) via the right atrial appendage. AVD was utilised intraoperatively at the discretion of the perfusionist and/or surgeon to maintain the required flow rate. Pre- and perioperative data were compared between the two groups. Fifty-seven patients underwent mAVR. Twenty-nine did not require assistance (AVD-), 28 did (AVD+). There were no significant differences between the two groups' age, sex distribution, body mass index and risk stratification data. Patients who required AVD had significantly higher body surface areas (BSAs) [1.93 m(2) (1.56-2.46) vs. 1.79 m(2) (1.41-2.26), P=0.03] and consequent higher CPB flow required [4.62 l/min (3.74-5.90) vs. 4.29 l/min (3.38-5.42), P=0.03]. Patients who required AVD tended to have longer ischaemic times [79.5 min (48-135) vs. 69 min (47-126), P=0.06]. AVD during mAVR is not necessary in every patient. We found it to be necessary in patients with higher BSA (consequently requiring a higher flow rate on CPB).</description><identifier>ISSN: 1569-9293</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1569-9285</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1510/icvts.2009.230888</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20231309</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Aortic Valve - surgery ; Assisted Circulation ; Body Surface Area ; Cardiopulmonary Bypass - adverse effects ; Catheterization, Central Venous ; Female ; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects ; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - methods ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; Patient Selection ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Assessment ; Risk Factors ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2010-06, Vol.10 (6), p.868-871</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-cc0eacf31c63c57745160c57eab940faa8c5bb398b468d2d7e699e2aa81455093</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-cc0eacf31c63c57745160c57eab940faa8c5bb398b468d2d7e699e2aa81455093</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20231309$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vaughan, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fenwick, Natasha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, Pankaj</creatorcontrib><title>Assisted venous drainage on cardiopulmonary bypass for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: is it necessary, useful or desirable?</title><title>Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery</title><addtitle>Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg</addtitle><description>Assisted venous drainage (AVD) is considered an essential component of the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) circuit for minimal access aortic valve replacement (mAVR). The rationale/necessity for AVD in every patient has not been fully elucidated. Data from consecutive patients undergoing isolated first-time mAVR by a single surgeon from March 2006 to October 2008 was prospectively collected. All cases were cannulated centrally. Venous drainage was by a three-stage cannula (Medtronic MC2X) via the right atrial appendage. AVD was utilised intraoperatively at the discretion of the perfusionist and/or surgeon to maintain the required flow rate. Pre- and perioperative data were compared between the two groups. Fifty-seven patients underwent mAVR. Twenty-nine did not require assistance (AVD-), 28 did (AVD+). There were no significant differences between the two groups' age, sex distribution, body mass index and risk stratification data. Patients who required AVD had significantly higher body surface areas (BSAs) [1.93 m(2) (1.56-2.46) vs. 1.79 m(2) (1.41-2.26), P=0.03] and consequent higher CPB flow required [4.62 l/min (3.74-5.90) vs. 4.29 l/min (3.38-5.42), P=0.03]. Patients who required AVD tended to have longer ischaemic times [79.5 min (48-135) vs. 69 min (47-126), P=0.06]. AVD during mAVR is not necessary in every patient. We found it to be necessary in patients with higher BSA (consequently requiring a higher flow rate on CPB).</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Aortic Valve - surgery</subject><subject>Assisted Circulation</subject><subject>Body Surface Area</subject><subject>Cardiopulmonary Bypass - adverse effects</subject><subject>Catheterization, Central Venous</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects</subject><subject>Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures</subject><subject>Patient Selection</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1569-9293</issn><issn>1569-9285</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9UcFK7TAQDaKoT_0AN5KdG-81aZq2cSMi-t4DwY2uyzSdSiRNa6Yt3E_wr41edTVnhnMOzDmMnUqxllqKS2eXidaZEGadKVFV1Q47lLowK5NVevcXG3XA_hC9CiGNUGKfHWQiU1IJc8jeb4gcTdjyBcMwE28juAAvyIfALcTWDePs-yFA3PBmMwIR74bIexdcD95vuAsLkFuQwxAnZ_kCPi0RRw8WewzTFXfE3cQDWiRKPhd8Juxmz5NPi-QiNB6vj9leB57w5Hsesef7u6fbf6uHx7__b28eVlblalpZKxBsp6QtlNVlmWtZiAQQGpOLDqCyummUqZq8qNqsLbEwBrN0l7nWwqgjdr71HePwNiNNde_IovcQMAVQl0pplZdlmZhyy7RxIIrY1WNMT8dNLUX9WUD9VUD9WUC9LSBpzr7d56bH9lfxk7j6AHJVhh0</recordid><startdate>201006</startdate><enddate>201006</enddate><creator>Vaughan, Paul</creator><creator>Fenwick, Natasha</creator><creator>Kumar, Pankaj</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201006</creationdate><title>Assisted venous drainage on cardiopulmonary bypass for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: is it necessary, useful or desirable?</title><author>Vaughan, Paul ; Fenwick, Natasha ; Kumar, Pankaj</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c343t-cc0eacf31c63c57745160c57eab940faa8c5bb398b468d2d7e699e2aa81455093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Aortic Valve - surgery</topic><topic>Assisted Circulation</topic><topic>Body Surface Area</topic><topic>Cardiopulmonary Bypass - adverse effects</topic><topic>Catheterization, Central Venous</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects</topic><topic>Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures</topic><topic>Patient Selection</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vaughan, Paul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fenwick, Natasha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kumar, Pankaj</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vaughan, Paul</au><au>Fenwick, Natasha</au><au>Kumar, Pankaj</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assisted venous drainage on cardiopulmonary bypass for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: is it necessary, useful or desirable?</atitle><jtitle>Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg</addtitle><date>2010-06</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>868</spage><epage>871</epage><pages>868-871</pages><issn>1569-9293</issn><eissn>1569-9285</eissn><abstract>Assisted venous drainage (AVD) is considered an essential component of the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) circuit for minimal access aortic valve replacement (mAVR). The rationale/necessity for AVD in every patient has not been fully elucidated. Data from consecutive patients undergoing isolated first-time mAVR by a single surgeon from March 2006 to October 2008 was prospectively collected. All cases were cannulated centrally. Venous drainage was by a three-stage cannula (Medtronic MC2X) via the right atrial appendage. AVD was utilised intraoperatively at the discretion of the perfusionist and/or surgeon to maintain the required flow rate. Pre- and perioperative data were compared between the two groups. Fifty-seven patients underwent mAVR. Twenty-nine did not require assistance (AVD-), 28 did (AVD+). There were no significant differences between the two groups' age, sex distribution, body mass index and risk stratification data. Patients who required AVD had significantly higher body surface areas (BSAs) [1.93 m(2) (1.56-2.46) vs. 1.79 m(2) (1.41-2.26), P=0.03] and consequent higher CPB flow required [4.62 l/min (3.74-5.90) vs. 4.29 l/min (3.38-5.42), P=0.03]. Patients who required AVD tended to have longer ischaemic times [79.5 min (48-135) vs. 69 min (47-126), P=0.06]. AVD during mAVR is not necessary in every patient. We found it to be necessary in patients with higher BSA (consequently requiring a higher flow rate on CPB).</abstract><cop>England</cop><pmid>20231309</pmid><doi>10.1510/icvts.2009.230888</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1569-9293
ispartof Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2010-06, Vol.10 (6), p.868-871
issn 1569-9293
1569-9285
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733534777
source Oxford Journals Open Access Collection; MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aortic Valve - surgery
Assisted Circulation
Body Surface Area
Cardiopulmonary Bypass - adverse effects
Catheterization, Central Venous
Female
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - methods
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
Patient Selection
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Treatment Outcome
title Assisted venous drainage on cardiopulmonary bypass for minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: is it necessary, useful or desirable?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T23%3A07%3A39IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assisted%20venous%20drainage%20on%20cardiopulmonary%20bypass%20for%20minimally%20invasive%20aortic%20valve%20replacement:%20is%20it%20necessary,%20useful%20or%20desirable?&rft.jtitle=Interactive%20cardiovascular%20and%20thoracic%20surgery&rft.au=Vaughan,%20Paul&rft.date=2010-06&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=868&rft.epage=871&rft.pages=868-871&rft.issn=1569-9293&rft.eissn=1569-9285&rft_id=info:doi/10.1510/icvts.2009.230888&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E733534777%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=733534777&rft_id=info:pmid/20231309&rfr_iscdi=true