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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery 2010-06, Vol.10 (6), p.868-871 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 |