Original Article

Clinical Comparison of Pulsatile and Nonpulsatile Perfusion During Cardiopulmonary Bypass

University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, and Shandong Qianfoshan Hospital

^* Address correspondence to: Zuorui Song, MD, Division of Clinical Perfusion Education, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 600 South 42nd Street, Omaha, NE 68198-5155, e-mail: Zsong@unmc.edu

Abstract

Controversy exists concerning the utilization of pulsatile flow during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) with regard to improved patient outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate pulsatile perfusion in patients undergoing CPB in a clinical setting. Seventy patients undergoing open heart surgery for repair of valvular or congenital heart disease were prospectively entered into the study and were randomly assigned to either pulsatile perfusion (PP, n=35) or nonpulsatile perfusion (NP, n=35) groups. All patients received identical surgical, perfusion, and postoperative care. Study parameters included: rate of spontaneous cardiac conversion, inotropic drug use, urine output, skin temperature, platelet count, fibrinogen concentration, and plasma free hemoglobin level.

There were no statistically significant differences seen in either preoperative or operative parameters between groups. The PP group had a significantly higher rate of spontaneous cardiac conversion, less inotropic drug use, earlier recovery of skin temperature, and higher urine output during CPB (908.8 ± 87.2 ml/hr vs. 606.1 ± 57.5 ml/hr, p < .01). There were no significant differences in either platelet count or fibrinogen concentration between groups. There was a steady increase in plasma free hemoglobin during PP, which was not seen in the NP group (p < .01).

We conclude that the use of pulsatile flow resulted in improved patient outcomes in maintaining better renal function and preserving cardiac function in the early post-bypass period.