Review Article

Pulsatile Perfusion during Cardiopulmonary Bypass: A Literature Review

^* Department of Anaesthetics and Intensive Care, Royal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom; and the
^† Department of Clinical Perfusion, Royal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Address correspondence to: Aileen Tan, Royal Papworth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridgeshire, CB2 0AY, Cambridge, United Kingdom. E-mail: aileen.tan@nhs.net

Received: 1 July 2021
Accepted: 15 November 2021

Abstract

The use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in cardiac surgery has often been associated with postoperative organ dysfunction. Roller and centrifugal pumps produce non-pulsatile flow (NPF) by default, and this still is the most widely used mode of perfusion. The development of pulsatile pumps has allowed comparisons to be made with NPF. Pulsatile flow (PF) mimics the arterial pulse generated by the heart and is thought to be more physiological by some. This review aims to examine the proposed mechanisms behind the potential physiological benefits of PF during CPB and to summarize the current clinical evidence. MEDLINE and EMBASE were used to identify articles published over a 25 year period from 1995 to 2020. A literature review was conducted to determine the effects of PF on organ functions. A total of 44 articles were considered. Most of the articles published on PF were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, there was a wide variation in study methodology, method of pulse generation and how pulsatility was measured. Most of the evidence in favor of PF showed a marginal improvement on renal and pulmonary outcomes. In these studies, pulsatility was generated by an intra-aortic balloon pump. In conclusion, there is a lack of good quality RCTs that can inform on the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of PF. Further research is required in order to draw a conclusion with regards to the benefits of PF on organ function.