The relative safety of an oxygenator

Analysis of prospectively registered incidents related to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was initiated to establish the incident rate for 10 different oxygenator brands employed over a seven-year period in 5000 clinical perfusions. A general safety index (SI) was defined as the number of recorded inci...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Perfusion 1997-09, Vol.12 (5), p.289-292
Hauptverfasser: Svenmarker, Staffan, Häggmark, Sören, Jansson, Erica, Lindholm, Ronny, Appelblad, Micael, Åberg, Torkel
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 292
container_issue 5
container_start_page 289
container_title Perfusion
container_volume 12
creator Svenmarker, Staffan
Häggmark, Sören
Jansson, Erica
Lindholm, Ronny
Appelblad, Micael
Åberg, Torkel
description Analysis of prospectively registered incidents related to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was initiated to establish the incident rate for 10 different oxygenator brands employed over a seven-year period in 5000 clinical perfusions. A general safety index (SI) was defined as the number of recorded incidents in a given series of oxygenators divided by its total number and multiplied by 100. Specific SI was calculated for each of the following categories: high-pressure drop, debris, gas exchange, leakage, material failure and oxygenator change-out. An SI of 0.2 was arbitrarily set as a reference and an acceptable safety level. An estimate of the relative risk for a particular oxygenator brand was compared with the reference by calculating the odd’s ratio with a 95% confidence interval. The mean SI was determined to be 1.6, ranging from 0 for the Maxima CBAS and the Cobe CML to 2.92 for the Safe oxygenator. The dominating specific type of incident was HPD with an SI of 0.81 followed by debris, SI = 0.71. A systematic analysis of adverse events in CPB may be used to evaluate and to set standards, a method already employed in the pharmaceutical industry. Our results indicate that oxygenator safety margins may vary between different brands.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/026765919701200503
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79283971</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_026765919701200503</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1082148611</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-cd149419a5d1dcda7faa9c078adc650ebfe78723a4e7a7cb90e1dbeb46b8229a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE9Lw0AQxRdRaq1-AUEIIt5id3Y3mexRiv-g4KWCtzDZTGpLmtRsIvbbm9Iioniagfd7b4YnxDnIGwDEsVQxxpEFixKUlJHUB2IIBjEEgNdDMdwC4ZY4FifeL6WUxhg9EAOr-xX1UFzN3jhouKR28cGBp4LbTVAXAVVB_bmZc0Vt3ZyKo4JKz2f7ORIv93ezyWM4fX54mtxOQ6fjqA1dDsYasBTlkLucsCCyTmJCuYsjyVnBmKDSZBgJXWYlQ55xZuIsUcqSHonrXe66qd879m26WnjHZUkV151P0apEW4QevPwFLuuuqfrfUrA2igwq2UNqB7mm9r7hIl03ixU1mxRkuu0v_dtfb7rYJ3fZivNvy76wXh_vdE9z_nH1_8Qvw2p2sQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>199554720</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The relative safety of an oxygenator</title><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Svenmarker, Staffan ; Häggmark, Sören ; Jansson, Erica ; Lindholm, Ronny ; Appelblad, Micael ; Åberg, Torkel</creator><creatorcontrib>Svenmarker, Staffan ; Häggmark, Sören ; Jansson, Erica ; Lindholm, Ronny ; Appelblad, Micael ; Åberg, Torkel</creatorcontrib><description>Analysis of prospectively registered incidents related to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was initiated to establish the incident rate for 10 different oxygenator brands employed over a seven-year period in 5000 clinical perfusions. A general safety index (SI) was defined as the number of recorded incidents in a given series of oxygenators divided by its total number and multiplied by 100. Specific SI was calculated for each of the following categories: high-pressure drop, debris, gas exchange, leakage, material failure and oxygenator change-out. An SI of 0.2 was arbitrarily set as a reference and an acceptable safety level. An estimate of the relative risk for a particular oxygenator brand was compared with the reference by calculating the odd’s ratio with a 95% confidence interval. The mean SI was determined to be 1.6, ranging from 0 for the Maxima CBAS and the Cobe CML to 2.92 for the Safe oxygenator. The dominating specific type of incident was HPD with an SI of 0.81 followed by debris, SI = 0.71. A systematic analysis of adverse events in CPB may be used to evaluate and to set standards, a method already employed in the pharmaceutical industry. Our results indicate that oxygenator safety margins may vary between different brands.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0267-6591</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-111X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/026765919701200503</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9300473</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Cardiopulmonary Bypass - adverse effects ; Equipment Safety ; Humans ; Odds Ratio ; Oxygenators ; Perfusion - instrumentation ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Assessment</subject><ispartof>Perfusion, 1997-09, Vol.12 (5), p.289-292</ispartof><rights>1997 SAGE Publications</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-cd149419a5d1dcda7faa9c078adc650ebfe78723a4e7a7cb90e1dbeb46b8229a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-cd149419a5d1dcda7faa9c078adc650ebfe78723a4e7a7cb90e1dbeb46b8229a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/026765919701200503$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/026765919701200503$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21799,27903,27904,43600,43601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9300473$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Svenmarker, Staffan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Häggmark, Sören</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jansson, Erica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindholm, Ronny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Appelblad, Micael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Åberg, Torkel</creatorcontrib><title>The relative safety of an oxygenator</title><title>Perfusion</title><addtitle>Perfusion</addtitle><description>Analysis of prospectively registered incidents related to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was initiated to establish the incident rate for 10 different oxygenator brands employed over a seven-year period in 5000 clinical perfusions. A general safety index (SI) was defined as the number of recorded incidents in a given series of oxygenators divided by its total number and multiplied by 100. Specific SI was calculated for each of the following categories: high-pressure drop, debris, gas exchange, leakage, material failure and oxygenator change-out. An SI of 0.2 was arbitrarily set as a reference and an acceptable safety level. An estimate of the relative risk for a particular oxygenator brand was compared with the reference by calculating the odd’s ratio with a 95% confidence interval. The mean SI was determined to be 1.6, ranging from 0 for the Maxima CBAS and the Cobe CML to 2.92 for the Safe oxygenator. The dominating specific type of incident was HPD with an SI of 0.81 followed by debris, SI = 0.71. A systematic analysis of adverse events in CPB may be used to evaluate and to set standards, a method already employed in the pharmaceutical industry. Our results indicate that oxygenator safety margins may vary between different brands.</description><subject>Cardiopulmonary Bypass - adverse effects</subject><subject>Equipment Safety</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Odds Ratio</subject><subject>Oxygenators</subject><subject>Perfusion - instrumentation</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><issn>0267-6591</issn><issn>1477-111X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE9Lw0AQxRdRaq1-AUEIIt5id3Y3mexRiv-g4KWCtzDZTGpLmtRsIvbbm9Iioniagfd7b4YnxDnIGwDEsVQxxpEFixKUlJHUB2IIBjEEgNdDMdwC4ZY4FifeL6WUxhg9EAOr-xX1UFzN3jhouKR28cGBp4LbTVAXAVVB_bmZc0Vt3ZyKo4JKz2f7ORIv93ezyWM4fX54mtxOQ6fjqA1dDsYasBTlkLucsCCyTmJCuYsjyVnBmKDSZBgJXWYlQ55xZuIsUcqSHonrXe66qd879m26WnjHZUkV151P0apEW4QevPwFLuuuqfrfUrA2igwq2UNqB7mm9r7hIl03ixU1mxRkuu0v_dtfb7rYJ3fZivNvy76wXh_vdE9z_nH1_8Qvw2p2sQ</recordid><startdate>19970901</startdate><enddate>19970901</enddate><creator>Svenmarker, Staffan</creator><creator>Häggmark, Sören</creator><creator>Jansson, Erica</creator><creator>Lindholm, Ronny</creator><creator>Appelblad, Micael</creator><creator>Åberg, Torkel</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><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>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19970901</creationdate><title>The relative safety of an oxygenator</title><author>Svenmarker, Staffan ; Häggmark, Sören ; Jansson, Erica ; Lindholm, Ronny ; Appelblad, Micael ; Åberg, Torkel</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-cd149419a5d1dcda7faa9c078adc650ebfe78723a4e7a7cb90e1dbeb46b8229a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Cardiopulmonary Bypass - adverse effects</topic><topic>Equipment Safety</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Odds Ratio</topic><topic>Oxygenators</topic><topic>Perfusion - instrumentation</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Svenmarker, Staffan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Häggmark, Sören</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jansson, Erica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindholm, Ronny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Appelblad, Micael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Åberg, Torkel</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Perfusion</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Svenmarker, Staffan</au><au>Häggmark, Sören</au><au>Jansson, Erica</au><au>Lindholm, Ronny</au><au>Appelblad, Micael</au><au>Åberg, Torkel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The relative safety of an oxygenator</atitle><jtitle>Perfusion</jtitle><addtitle>Perfusion</addtitle><date>1997-09-01</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>12</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>289</spage><epage>292</epage><pages>289-292</pages><issn>0267-6591</issn><eissn>1477-111X</eissn><abstract>Analysis of prospectively registered incidents related to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was initiated to establish the incident rate for 10 different oxygenator brands employed over a seven-year period in 5000 clinical perfusions. A general safety index (SI) was defined as the number of recorded incidents in a given series of oxygenators divided by its total number and multiplied by 100. Specific SI was calculated for each of the following categories: high-pressure drop, debris, gas exchange, leakage, material failure and oxygenator change-out. An SI of 0.2 was arbitrarily set as a reference and an acceptable safety level. An estimate of the relative risk for a particular oxygenator brand was compared with the reference by calculating the odd’s ratio with a 95% confidence interval. The mean SI was determined to be 1.6, ranging from 0 for the Maxima CBAS and the Cobe CML to 2.92 for the Safe oxygenator. The dominating specific type of incident was HPD with an SI of 0.81 followed by debris, SI = 0.71. A systematic analysis of adverse events in CPB may be used to evaluate and to set standards, a method already employed in the pharmaceutical industry. Our results indicate that oxygenator safety margins may vary between different brands.</abstract><cop>Thousand Oaks, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>9300473</pmid><doi>10.1177/026765919701200503</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0267-6591
ispartof Perfusion, 1997-09, Vol.12 (5), p.289-292
issn 0267-6591
1477-111X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_79283971
source SAGE Complete A-Z List; MEDLINE
subjects Cardiopulmonary Bypass - adverse effects
Equipment Safety
Humans
Odds Ratio
Oxygenators
Perfusion - instrumentation
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
title The relative safety of an oxygenator
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T02%3A44%3A25IST&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=The%20relative%20safety%20of%20an%20oxygenator&rft.jtitle=Perfusion&rft.au=Svenmarker,%20Staffan&rft.date=1997-09-01&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=289&rft.epage=292&rft.pages=289-292&rft.issn=0267-6591&rft.eissn=1477-111X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/026765919701200503&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1082148611%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=199554720&rft_id=info:pmid/9300473&rft_sage_id=10.1177_026765919701200503&rfr_iscdi=true