Open Access
Issue
J Extra Corpor Technol
Volume 55, Number 1, March 2023
Page(s) 30 - 38
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/ject/2023004
Published online 24 March 2023

© The Author(s), published by EDP Sciences, 2023

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

The new era of cardiac surgery has changed the paradigm of obtaining an acceptable survival rate to the adoption of Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery (ERACS) programs to reinforce every step of the perioperative procedure to augment the efficiency of cardiac surgery processes. Thus, the recommended intraoperative interventions are mainly oriented to maintaining temperature, glycemia, and oxygenation within a physiological range [13].

Due to the relevant contribution of the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in this regard, the perfusionist approach in ERACS should be focused on the adoption of evidence-proven strategies to reduce the impact of CPB in terms of homeostasis, blood product requirements (BPR), and inflammatory response.

Minimally invasive extracorporeal circuits (MiECC) and repriming techniques like retrograde autologous priming (RAP) have been strongly recommended for blood-saving [1, 4, 5]. However, methodological weakness in current studies and heterogeneity between authors in the application of both is a matter of concern [611] about its beneficial effect in terms of the whole process.

Thus, with these concerns in mind, in 2014 our team developed the concept of Haematic Antegrade Repriming (HAR) as a standardized methodology, combining the benefits of MiECC and a new antegrade repriming method, improved with the application of vacuum-assisted venous drainage and the initiation of CPB with an empty venous line, to minimize the haemodilutional impact to 300 mL [12].

Once proven the biosafety of the procedure in terms of gaseous microemboli (GME), and the beneficial effect of reducing the total embolic load delivered during CPB, seems mandatory to evaluate the potential benefit of HAR as a perfusion tool for ERACS (Figure 1).

thumbnail Figure 1

Graphical abstract. This figure summarizes the preliminary assessment of HAR’s potential benefits, to enhance postoperative recovery after cardiopulmonary bypass, considering a sample composed of high-risk patients and a propensity score matching methodology for the estimation of the effects. Abbreviations: MiECC – minimized extracorporeal circuit; VAVD – vacuum-assisted venous drainage; <10 h – lower than ten hours; <2 d – lower than two days.

Material and methods

Study design

Two retrospective cohorts of high-risk patients were compared by applying a propensity score matching (PSM), to estimate the effect of HAR, after the approval of the institutional ethics committee (IRB/EC Nr. 2019-10-3-HCUVA). Because of the retrospective nature of the research, no reported consent was required.

Sample composition

One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery under CPB for four consecutive years in our institution were considered. After the application of exclusion criteria, 425 patients were assessed in a PSM model. The treatment group (HG) was recruited since the HAR procedure was standardized for every patient in our hospital, while the control group (CG) was composed, considering patients from a historical cohort, presenting similar preoperative conditions and treated under the same predefined clinical criteria to reduce the influence of biases (Figure 2).

thumbnail Figure 2

Diagram of sample composition. HAR group was recruited from 01/2014 to 12/2016, while CG was recruited from 01/2012 to 12/2013. Abbreviations: CG – control group; Hgb – Haemoglobin; CPB – cardiopulmonary bypass; ECMO – extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

For election, patients required a preoperative logistic EUROSCORE index ≥5 [13] to be included and none of the exclusion criteria: preoperative anemia (Hgb <8 g/dL), emergent/urgent surgery, heart transplantation, endocarditis, preoperative renal failure, redo surgery within the first 48 h or multiple CPB initiations in a surgical process. Each case with controversial registers about clinical treatment, transfusion threshold, or postoperative management was also excluded from the study (Figure 2).

Equipment

CPB was conducted with a Stöckert S5® (Livanova™ PLC, London) heart-lung machine and the support of an AutoLog® cell saver (Medtronic™ PLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota). Both groups received a biocompatible circuits including a Revolution® centrifugal pump (Livanova™ PLC, London). Patients with a body surface area ≥1,8 m2 were oxygenated with a Capiox FX25®, included in a circuit treated with XCoating® (Terumo Corp., Tokyo, Japan), while in smaller patients (<1,8 m2), a circuit with P.H.I.S.I.O.® coating and the Inspire 6F® oxygenator (Livanova™ PLC, London) was used.

Procedure

CG patients underwent CPB, being connected to a conventional open circuit with ½ inch return line, (1350 mL of dynamic priming).

HG patients received the standardized HAR circuit (760 mL) (Figure 3), being initially primed with 1000 mL of Isofundin® (B. Braun, Melsungen, Germany). Then, the HAR procedure was applied by following a simple six-step procedure which does not increase the operative time. After recirculation, the circuit was clamped and offered to the surgeon. Then, lines were cut and the crystalloid in the venous line was drained to the hard-shell reservoir. All exceeding volume was diverted through the recirculation line of the oxygenator to a collector bag during the arterial cannulation. When the arterial line was connected priming was also discarded. Afterwards, 400 mL of autologous blood was retrogradely “sequestered” from the aorta during venous cannulation, to permit the succeeding antegrade repriming of the pump head and oxygenator. In order to avoid hypotension (MAP < 60 mmHg), backflow during sequestration did not exceed −250 mL/min and the anaesthesiologist considered the administration of phenylephrine boluses (0,01 mg) in some cases. Thereby, the haemodilutional impact of CPB initiation for treated patients represented 300 mL (Figure 4).

thumbnail Figure 3

Minimized extracorporeal circuit applied during haematic antegrade repriming. Lines (dimensions): 1 – Post-reservoir line (3/8 x 35 cm); 2 – Pre-oxygenator line (3/8 × 40 cm); 3 – proximal arterial line (3/8 × 25 cm); 4 – medial arterial line (3/8 × 55 cm); 5 – distal arterial line (sterile) (3/8 × 135 cm); 6 – distal venous line (sterile) (3/8 × 105 cm); 7 – proximal venous line (3/8 × 40 cm); 8 – arterial recirculation line (clamp included) 1/8 (double male Luer-lock × 70 cm).

thumbnail Figure 4

HAR, the 6 steps procedure. Step 1: The circuit is primed with 1000 mL of a balanced crystalloid solution. Then, venous and arterial lines are clamped. Step 2: Venous line content is drained to the reservoir by activating vacuum-assisted venous drainage (VAVD) and removing the venous clamp. Step 3: removing the arterial line clamp that is proximal to the patient and opening the arterial line recirculation, autologous blood discurs retrogradely pushing the crystalloid priming to the reservoir. Then, the arterial recirculation line clamp is closed to avoid blood mixing in the reservoir. Step 4: By opening the recirculation line of the oxygenator and setting the centrifugal pump (CP) to 2000 rpm, crystalloid priming is discarded into the collector bag until zero level in the reservoir is reached. Step 5: A clamp is placed after the reservoir and arterial line recirculation is opened again. Thus, retrogradely, 300 mL of arterial blood is sequestered in the reservoir (100–200 mL/min). Step 6: Setting CP to 2000 rpm and opening the recirculation line of the oxygenator and removing the clamp after the reservoir, CP and oxygenator are reprimed with autologous blood, displacing the priming and GME to the collector bag reducing haemodilution to only 300 mL. *CPB is initiated with VAVD activation once the venous return is obtained. Adapted from: [17].

Clinical management

All recruited patients were induced into general anesthesia with Propofol, Rocuronium, and Remifentanil in boluses. Hypnosis was maintained with sevoflurane according to monitoring, to avoid a bispectral index <60 (BIS, Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA). Ten mg/kg of tranexamic acid was administered during the induction, and a continuous infusion of 1 mg/kg/h was maintained during CPB. A 300 UI/kg bolus of sodium heparin was used as an initial dose to achieve anticoagulation. Target-activated clotting time (ACT) during CPB was > 440 s (Hemochron Signature Elite, Werfen, Spain), Heparin was reversed with protamine 1:1 after CPB. Afterward, the additional procoagulant strategy was thromboelastometric-guided (ROTEM Delta, Werfen, Spain) in every case to reduce postoperative coagulopathy.

Hgb drop below 8 mg/dL was strictly avoided. Therefore, the Renaflo II HF2000 hemofilter (Cantel Medical Corp, Little Falls, NJ, USA) was applied for continuous ultrafiltration (CUF) to compensate for hemodilution, when possible. Otherwise, if the circulating volume was not sufficient, red-blood-cells (RBC) transfusion was initiated [14].

During CPB, pump index and mean arterial pressure was maintained within ranges of 2–2.4 L/min/m2 and 50–80 mmHg, respectively. Cardioplegia was partially haematic (4:1), cold, intermittent, and predominantly antegrade for both groups and did not exceed 1000 mL of the crystalloid fraction. The temperature was actively maintained over 35 °C to avoid hypothermia [15, 16]. Following an alpha-stat strategy, euglycemia, osmolarity, and acid-base balance were also preserved in a physiologic range. After cross-clamp release, 3 mg of magnesium sulfate was administered, aiming to reduce the incidence of fibrillation.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics were described using means and standard deviations for continuous variables, as well as proportions for dichotomous ones, being compared with Student’s T-test and Pearson’s Chi2 test, respectively.

To estimate the effect of treatment on the outcome variates, a PSM (with kernel matching) model was applied [17]. Thus, a logistic regression model was used to estimate the propensity score to be treated with the HAR technique considering the covariates: sex, weight, age, body surface area, presence of diabetes mellitus, and type of surgery as well as the preoperative hematocrit, left ventricular ejection fraction, stroke and logistic EUROSCORE. Then, the balance between groups was assessed. A covariate was considered as balanced if the standardized difference was <10% and the variance rate was within the range of 0.5 and 2 points [18, 19]. Afterward, the average treatment effect on treated (ATT) was estimated by applying the bootstrap method (with 100, 1000, and 2000 iterations to verify the convergence of the model) to obtain 95% confidence intervals [1719]. Then, the ATT estimation, regarding transfusion and ICU stay, was considered to calculate the economic impact of the HAR methodology. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata v.14, StataCorp LP.

Results

Two hundred and twenty-five patients treated with HAR were compared to 210 controls. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of preoperative risk (Euroscore Log.: CG = 7.5%, HG = 6.8%, p = 0.42). Despite the differences in sex distribution (Sex (male): GC = 59.5% vs. HG = 71.1%; p = 0.01), no other significant differences were found in terms of weight, body surface area, preoperative Hb, comorbidities, or type of surgery (Table 1).

Table 1

Description of the covariate analysis.

Regarding the PSM model, covariates appeared to be properly balanced (Table 2). ATT indicated that the treatment group’s exposure to any blood product until discharge was lower (GlobalBP: CG = 66.75% vs. GH = 6.88%, p < 0.001). Within the first 24 h, the exposure to RBC (RBC24: CG = 52.60% vs. HG = 5.05%, p < 0.001), plasma (FP24: CG = 11.22% vs. HG = 0.92%, p < 0.001) and platelets (PT24: CG = 32.07% vs. HG = 3.21%, p < 0.001), was significantly lower for treated. In the period within the first 24 h and hospital discharge, requirements of RBC (RBC > 24: CG = 38.55% vs. HG = 4.59%, p < 0.001) and plasma (FP > 24: CG = 4.45% vs. HG = 0.46%, p < 0.05) was also found to be lower for patients receiving HAR (Table 3).

Table 2

Balancing of preoperative variables.

Table 3

Average treatment effect on treated (percentual estimation).

The requirement of mechanical ventilation after 10 h was significantly reduced for treated, (MV > 10 h: CG = 26.51% vs. HG = 12.62%, p = 0.005). Similarly, extension in ICU stay after 2 days was lowered in the treatment group (ICU > 2 d: CG = 47.47% vs. HG = 31.19%, p = 0.003) (Table 3). Otherwise, no significant differences were found between groups in terms of early mortality (CG 12.51% vs. HG 5.5%, p = 0.056), postoperative bleeding (Bleeding > 400: CG = 57.6% vs. HG = 48.9%, p = 0.14) and the incidence of postoperative complications (p > 0.05) (Table 3).

Considering the public unitary prices per blood component and per day of ICU stay in our region, the minimum cost saving related to the application of HAR was estimated as 581.7 $/patient (Table 4).

Table 4

Minimum direct cost estimation.

Discussion

The transfusional effect estimated for HAR seemed to be superior to the isolated effect of MiECC, VAVD, RAP, and CPB initiation with an empty venous line. Albeit MiECC was recommended as I-A for blood conservation a decade ago, current evidence indicates that the overall effect in outcomes is controversial, due to not finding significant differences in terms of reoperation for bleeding, 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, renal, and cerebral outcomes [6]. RAP nomenclature is also tainted by several limitations like the heterogeneity in practice and Vranken et al. warned about the high risk of biases behind the current level of recommendation related to the technique/s [8].

Regarding the use of VAVD, when applied in a range of suction not lower than −40 mmHg, seems to be a safe practice that contributes to reducing hemodilution and transfusion. The initiation of CPB with an empty venous line is a controverted perfusion strategy to reduce circulating volume and hemodilution, being required after the completion of HAR. Despite possible concerns about the emboli impact of any of both, there is recent evidence indicating that HAR represents a protective factor against emboli, reducing the embolic load delivered to the patient during CPB and the exposure to high embolic volumes [20]. Some authors pointed out that GME and sudden hemodilution play a major role in the aggression to endothelial glycocalyx, resulting in microvascular impairment, hypoperfusion, inflammatory response, and end-organ dysfunction [2124].

However, current evidence supporting the individual benefits of the CPB initiation with an empty venous line or VAVD, in terms of enhanced recovery, is also poor [1, 25, 26]. Otherwise, our observations indicate that when all these techniques are combined in the standardized procedure described as HAR, priming hemodilution and BPR until hospital discharge are reduced until hospital discharge, representing a significant effect on the recovery. In terms of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay our study seems to be aligned with current evidence pointing out that exposure to sudden haemodilution during CPB is directly associated with the incidence of endothelial dysfunction, inflammatory response, and renal injury [22, 24, 27]. Some evidence indicates that MiECC application may reduce mechanical ventilation time, ICU length of stay, inflammatory response, cytokine release, and total stay [2830].

Lower exposure to BPR and anemia are also related to lower postoperative morbidity and mortality [3133]. However, our preliminary study only was able to observe that HAR applications did not represent significant differences in postoperative morbidity and bleeding, but a marked tendency to reduce in-hospital mortality by seven points was observed (p = 0.056). In this regard, we consider that the protective effect of the procedure could have been underestimated by the adoption of strict exclusion criteria, that eliminated redo cases, to improve the accuracy in measuring the effect on BPR.

Under an economic scope, HAR does not seem to represent any additional cost. Moreover, when applied to high-risk patients, just computing the direct cost of one unit when the exposure was avoided, the minimum unburdened savings exceeded 580 $/patient [34]. However, burdened costs of transfusion and ICU stay also include expenses like human resources, machinery, facility maintenance, transport, storage, side effects, and follow-up costs which should be considered [35]. Thereby, according to other authors [3639], the saving per patient treated with HAR may reach the amount of 2741.94 $ (Table 5).

Table 5

Minimum global cost estimation.

Several limitations should be considered in this preliminary study. Although the application of a PSM to estimate the causal effects of treatments can reduce the effect of biases when assessing retrospective samples, the results are affected by a higher model dependency than when a prospective randomized methodology is applied [40].

The exclusion criteria applied may have led to the underestimation of certain outcome variables. While the elimination of cases with clinical records compliant with criteria may have reduced the influence of biases, excluding all the patients requiring early reintervention due to active bleeding or cardiac tamponade may have attenuated the effect of HAR in all outcome variables.

To conclude, HAR seems to be a promising approach that could be included as a perfusion tool for ERACS programs, to promote the recovery of patients in terms of BPR, endothelial glycocalyx preservation, and embolic protection, without representing additional risks when applied under the specified methodology. However, future randomized and controlled studies are required to confirm our findings.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from the public, commercial, or not-for-profit funding agencies.

Data availability

Requestors wishing to access a de-identified minimal dataset for monitoring purposes of our published analyses, can apply to Juan Blanco-Morillo.

Ethics

Ethical approval is not required.

Author contributions

Juan Blanco-Morillo drafted the manuscript. Diego Salmerón conducted a critical review of the manuscript, performed the statistical analyses, and participated in the analysis and in the drafting of the manuscript. José María Arribas contributed to data interpretation and the critical review of the manuscript, and was involved in the study design. Piero Farina and Luc Puis reviewed the manuscript, and made substantial contributions to its final content. Piero Farina is responsible for the artwork. Ángel Sornichero provided the data and was involved in the study design. Sergio Juan Cánovas reviewed athe manuscript, and made substantial contributions to its final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

References

  1. Margarit JAE, Pajares MA, García-Camacho C, Blanco-Morillo J (2020) Vía clínica de recuperación intensificada en cirugía cardiaca. Documento de consenso de la Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor (SEDAR), la Sociedad Española de Cirugía Cardiovascular y Endovascular (SECCE) y la Asociación Española de Perfusionistas (AEP). Cir Cardiovasc 13, 28. [Google Scholar]
  2. Jawitz OK, Bradford WT, McConnell G, Engel J, Allender JE, Williams JB (2020) How to start an enhanced recovery after surgery cardiac program. Crit Care Clin 36(4), 571–579. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Yazdchi F, Hirji S, Harloff M, et al. (2022) Enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery: a propensity-matched analysis. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 34(2), 585–594. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Puis L, Milojevic M, Boer C, et al. (2019) EACTS/EACTA/EBCP guidelines on cardiopulmonary bypass in adult cardiac surgery. Interact CardioVasc Thorac Surg [Internet] 59, 12–53. [cited 2019 Nov 20]; Available from: https://academic.oup.com/icvts/advance-article/doi/10.1093/icvts/ivz251/5579824. [Google Scholar]
  5. Menkis AH, Martin J, Cheng DCH, et al. (2012) Drug, devices, technologies, and techniques for blood management in minimally invasive and conventional cardiothoracic surgery: a consensus statement from the International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery (ISMICS) 2011. Innovations (Phila) 7(4), 229–241. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Tibi P, McClure RS, Huang J, et al. (2021) STS/SCA/AmSECT/SABM update to the clinical practice guidelines on patient blood management. Ann Thorac Surg 112(3), 981–1004. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Society of Thoracic Surgeons Blood Conservation Guideline Task Force, Ferraris VA, Brown JR, et al. (2011) 2011 update to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists blood conservation clinical practice guidelines. Ann Thorac Surg 91(3), 944–982. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Vranken NP, Babar ZU, Montoya JA, Weerwind PW (2020) Retrograde autologous priming to reduce allogeneic blood transfusion requirements: a systematic review. Perfusion 3, 267659119895474. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hagedorn C, Glogowski K, Valleley M, McQuiston L, Consbruck K (2019) Retrograde autologous priming technique to reduce hemodilution during cardiopulmonary bypass in the pediatric cardiac patient. J Extra Corpor Technol 51(2), 100–103. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Balachandran S, Cross MH, Karthikeyan S, Mulpur A, Hansbro SD, Hobson P (2002) Retrograde autologous priming of the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit reduces blood transfusion after coronary artery surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 73(6), 1912–1918. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Rosengart TK, DeBois W, O’Hara M, et al. (1998) Retrograde autologous priming for cardiopulmonary bypass: a safe and effective means of decreasing hemodilution and transfusion requirements. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 115(2), 426–439. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Blanco-Morillo J, Arribas-Leal JM, Farina P, et al. (2021) Hematic antegrade repriming: a reproducible method to decrease the cardiopulmonary bypass insult. J Extra Corpor Technol 53(1), 75–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rodríguez-Chávez LL, Figueroa-Solano J, Muñoz-Consuegra CE, et al. (2017) EuroSCORE subestima el riesgo de mortalidad en cirugía cardiaca valvular de población mexicana. Archivos de cardiología de México 87(1), 18–25. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Vermeer H, Teerenstra S, de Sévaux RGL, van Swieten HA, Weerwind PW (2008) The effect of hemodilution during normothermic cardiac surgery on renal physiology and function: a review. Perfusion 23(6), 329–338. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ho KM, Tan JA (2011) Benefits and risks of maintaining normothermia during cardiopulmonary bypass in adult cardiac surgery: a systematic review. Cardiovasc Ther 29(4), 260–279. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Rajagopalan S, Mascha E, Na J, Sessler DI (2008) The effects of mild perioperative hypothermia on blood loss and transfusion requirement. Anesthesiology 108(1), 71–77. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Garrido MM, Kelley AS, Paris J, et al. (2014) Methods for constructing and assessing propensity scores. Health Serv Res 49(5), 1701–1720. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Stuart EA (2010) Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Stat Sci 25(1), 1–21. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, Cambridge [Internet] 70, 41–55. [cited 2021 May 3]; Available from: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3382855. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Blanco-Morillo J, Salmerón Martínez D, Morillo-Cuadrado DV, et al. (2022) Hematic antegrade repriming reduces emboli on cardiopulmonary bypass: a randomized controlled trial. ASAIO J 69, 324–331. [Google Scholar]
  21. Myers GJ, Wegner J (2017) Endothelial glycocalyx and cardiopulmonary bypass. J Extra Corpor Technol 49(3), 174–181. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Koning NJ, de Lange F, Vonk ABA, et al. (2016) Impaired microcirculatory perfusion in a rat model of cardiopulmonary bypass: the role of hemodilution. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 310(5), H550–H558. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Wu Q, Gao W, Zhou J, et al. (2019) Correlation between acute degradation of the endothelial glycocalyx and microcirculation dysfunction during cardiopulmonary bypass in cardiac surgery. Microvasc Res 10(124), 37–42. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Giacinto O, Satriano U, Nenna A, et al. (2019) Inflammatory response and endothelial dysfunction following cardiopulmonary bypass: pathophysiology and pharmacological targets. Recent Pat Inflamm Allergy Drug Discov 13, 158–173. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. De Rita F, Marchi D, Lucchese G, et al. (2013) Comparison between D901 Lilliput 1 and Kids D100 neonatal oxygenators: toward bypass circuit miniaturization. Artif Organs 37(1), E24–E28. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. de Carvalho Filho EB, Marson FA de L, da Costa LNG, Antunes N (2014) Vacuum-assisted drainage in cardiopulmonary bypass: advantages and disadvantages. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc 29(2), 266–271. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Dogné S, Flamion B (2020) Endothelial glycocalyx impairment in disease: focus on hyaluronan shedding. Am J Pathol 190(4), 768–780. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Anastasiadis K, Murkin J, Antonitsis P, et al. (2016) Use of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation in cardiac surgery: principles, definitions and potential benefits. A position paper from the Minimal invasive Extra-Corporeal Technologies international Society (MiECTiS). Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 22(5), 647–662. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ranucci M, Baryshnikova E (2019) Inflammation and coagulation following minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation technologies. J Thorac Dis 11(Suppl 10), S1480–S1488. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kiessling AH, Keller H, Prospective Moritz A. 2018. Prospective, randomized un-blinded three arm controlled study in coronary artery revascularization with Minimal Invasive Extracorporeal Circulation Systems (MiECC): surrogate parameter analysis of biocompatibility. Heart Surg Forum. 21, E179–E186. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Engoren M, Schwann TA, Habib RH, Neill SN, Vance JL, Likosky DS (2014) The independent effects of anemia and transfusion on mortality after coronary artery bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 97(2), 514–520. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kuduvalli M, Oo AY, Newall N, et al. (2005) Effect of peri-operative red blood cell transfusion on 30-day and 1-year mortality following coronary artery bypass surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 27(4), 592–598. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Loor G, Rajeswaran J, Li L, et al. (2013) The least of 3 evils: Exposure to red blood cell transfusion, anemia, or both? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 146(6), 1480–1487.e6. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. de Hacienda Consejería (2019) Orden de 22 de febrero de 2019 de la Consejería de Hacienda, por la que se publican las tarifas de las tasas y precios públicos aplicables en el año 2019. BORM 6(6371), 6503. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kacker S, Frick KD, Tobian AAR (2013) The costs of transfusion: economic evaluations in transfusion medicine, Part 1. Transfusion 53(7), 1383–1385. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Shander A, Hofmann A, Ozawa S, Theusinger OM, Gombotz H, Spahn DR (2010) Activity-based costs of blood transfusions in surgical patients at four hospitals. Transfusion 50(4), 753–765. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Barnett CL, Mladsi D, Vredenburg M, Aggarwal K (2018) Cost estimate of platelet transfusion in the United States for patients with chronic liver disease and associated thrombocytopenia undergoing elective procedures. J Med Econ 21(8), 827–834. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Shander A, Ozawa S, Hofmann A (2016) Activity-based costs of plasma transfusions in medical and surgical inpatients at a US hospital. Vox Sanguinis 111(1), 55–61. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Dasta JF, McLaughlin TP, Mody SH, Piech CT (2005) Daily cost of an intensive care unit day: the contribution of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 33(6), 1266–1271. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Nuttall GA, Houle TT (2008) Liars, damn liars, and propensity scores. Anesthesiology 108(1), 3–4. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Blanco-Morillo J, Salmerón Martínez D, Arribas-Leal JM, Farina P, Puis L, Sornichero-Caballero AJ & Cánovas-López SJ. Haematic antegrade repriming to enhance recovery after cardiac surgery from the perfusionist side. J Extra Corpor Technol 2023, 55, 30–38

All Tables

Table 1

Description of the covariate analysis.

Table 2

Balancing of preoperative variables.

Table 3

Average treatment effect on treated (percentual estimation).

Table 4

Minimum direct cost estimation.

Table 5

Minimum global cost estimation.

All Figures

thumbnail Figure 1

Graphical abstract. This figure summarizes the preliminary assessment of HAR’s potential benefits, to enhance postoperative recovery after cardiopulmonary bypass, considering a sample composed of high-risk patients and a propensity score matching methodology for the estimation of the effects. Abbreviations: MiECC – minimized extracorporeal circuit; VAVD – vacuum-assisted venous drainage; <10 h – lower than ten hours; <2 d – lower than two days.

In the text
thumbnail Figure 2

Diagram of sample composition. HAR group was recruited from 01/2014 to 12/2016, while CG was recruited from 01/2012 to 12/2013. Abbreviations: CG – control group; Hgb – Haemoglobin; CPB – cardiopulmonary bypass; ECMO – extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

In the text
thumbnail Figure 3

Minimized extracorporeal circuit applied during haematic antegrade repriming. Lines (dimensions): 1 – Post-reservoir line (3/8 x 35 cm); 2 – Pre-oxygenator line (3/8 × 40 cm); 3 – proximal arterial line (3/8 × 25 cm); 4 – medial arterial line (3/8 × 55 cm); 5 – distal arterial line (sterile) (3/8 × 135 cm); 6 – distal venous line (sterile) (3/8 × 105 cm); 7 – proximal venous line (3/8 × 40 cm); 8 – arterial recirculation line (clamp included) 1/8 (double male Luer-lock × 70 cm).

In the text
thumbnail Figure 4

HAR, the 6 steps procedure. Step 1: The circuit is primed with 1000 mL of a balanced crystalloid solution. Then, venous and arterial lines are clamped. Step 2: Venous line content is drained to the reservoir by activating vacuum-assisted venous drainage (VAVD) and removing the venous clamp. Step 3: removing the arterial line clamp that is proximal to the patient and opening the arterial line recirculation, autologous blood discurs retrogradely pushing the crystalloid priming to the reservoir. Then, the arterial recirculation line clamp is closed to avoid blood mixing in the reservoir. Step 4: By opening the recirculation line of the oxygenator and setting the centrifugal pump (CP) to 2000 rpm, crystalloid priming is discarded into the collector bag until zero level in the reservoir is reached. Step 5: A clamp is placed after the reservoir and arterial line recirculation is opened again. Thus, retrogradely, 300 mL of arterial blood is sequestered in the reservoir (100–200 mL/min). Step 6: Setting CP to 2000 rpm and opening the recirculation line of the oxygenator and removing the clamp after the reservoir, CP and oxygenator are reprimed with autologous blood, displacing the priming and GME to the collector bag reducing haemodilution to only 300 mL. *CPB is initiated with VAVD activation once the venous return is obtained. Adapted from: [17].

In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.