Original Articles

Survey: Retrospective Survey of Monitoring/Safety Devices and Incidents of Cardiopulmonary Bypass for Cardiac Surgery in France

^* Département d’Anesthésie-Réanimation, CHU La Milétrie, Poitiers, France
^† Département de Chirurgie Cardio-Vasculaire, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France
^‡ Service de Chirurgie Cardio-Vasculaire, Hôpital Bon Secours, Metz, France
^§ Département d’Anesthésie-Réanimation, GH La Pitié Salpêtrière, Paris, France
^¶ Département d’Anesthésie-Réanimation, Hôpital Necker Enfants Malades, Paris, France
^∥ Service de Chirurgie Cardio-Vasculaire, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France
^** Département d’Anesthésie-Réanimation, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France
^†† Haute Autorité de santé (Health Technology Assessment Department), Saint-Denis La Plaine Cedex, France
^‡‡ Département d’Anesthésie-Réanimation, CHU de Nancy, and Unité INSERM U 684, Faculté de Médecine de Nancy, Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France

Address correspondence to: Dan Longrois, MD, PhD, Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, CHU Brabois-Nancy, 4, rue du Morvan, 54500 Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France. E-mail: d.longrois@chu-nancy.fr

Abstract

Several surveys showed that cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is associated with incidents that negatively affect outcome and suggested that improved monitoring and safety could be associated with a decreased rate of incidents. In 2004, the French “Haute Autorité de Santé”(an independent French government advisory agency) and the French College of Perfusion issued recommendations concerning safety and monitoring devices for CPB. The aims of this study were to investigate the difference between the recommendations and the clinical practice of CPB shortly after publication of the recommendations and compare the 2005 situation with the results of a previous survey performed in France and to investigate the rate of perfusion incidents and their outcome. A 62-item questionnaire was sent in January 2006 to all 66 centers performing cardiac surgery and CPB in France. The survey investigated the use of safety and monitoring devices as well as perfusion incidents for 2005. Fifty-seven centers (response rate, 86%) returned the questionnaire, totaling 34,496 CPB procedures. There was a wide difference between the recommendations and the reported use of safety and monitoring devices with no clinically relevant change from the previous French survey concerning 2001. An incident was reported for every 198 CPB procedures with death at a frequency of 1:4864 and permanent sequelae of 1:11,349, respectively (a permanent injury or death in 1:3220 procedures). The three most frequent perfusion incidents were adverse effects to protamine (1:1702), dissection at the arterial cannulation site (1:1792), and coagulation of the circuit (1:4864). In conclusion, this survey showed that an important effort must be made in France to implement into clinical practice the recommendations concerning CPB monitoring and safety devices. The analysis of CPB-related incidents suggest that, with the exception of protamine adverse effects, the majority of deaths and severe permanent injuries in this survey could probably be avoided by improved use of the monitoring and safety devices.