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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Perfusion 1997-09, Vol.12 (5), p.289-292 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |