EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 58 / No 1 (March 2026) J Extra Corpor Technol, 58 1 (2026) 19-31 References
Open Access
Issue
J Extra Corpor Technol
Volume 58, Number 1, March 2026
Page(s) 19 - 31
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/ject/2025067
Published online 13 March 2026
  1. PugsleyW, KlingerL, PaschalisC, TreasureT, HarrisonM, NewmanS. The impact of microemboli during cardiopulmonary bypass on neuropsychological functioning. Stroke. 1994;25(7):1393–1399. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.25.7.1393. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. BorgerMA, FeindelCM. Cerebral emboli during cardiopulmonary bypass: Effect of perfusionist interventions and aortic cannulas. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2002;34:29–33. [Google Scholar]
  3. RodriguezRA, WilliamsKA, BabaevA, RubensF, NathanHJ. Effect of perfusionist technique on cerebral embolization during cardiopulmonary bypass. Perfusion. 2005;20(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267659105pf778oa. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. RodriguezRA, RubensF, BelwayD, NathanHJ. Residual air in the venous cannula increases cerebral embolization at the onset of cardiopulmonary bypass. Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg. 2006;29(2):175–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2005.11.006. [Google Scholar]
  5. TaylorRL, BorgerMA, WeiselRD, FedorkoL, FeindelCM. Cerebral microemboli during cardiopulmonary bypass: Increased emboli during perfusionist interventions. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999;68(1):89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003–4975(99)00475–0. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. ChungEML. Transcranial doppler embolus detection: A primer. Ultrasound. 2006;14(4):202–210. https://doi.org/10.1179/174313406X150122. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. JaburGN, DonnellyJ, MerryAF, MitchellSJ. A prospective observational study of emboli exposure in open versus closed chamber cardiac surgery. Perfusion. 2022;37(7):715–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591211023897. [Google Scholar]
  8. GuptaP, SteinerLA. Role of transcranial doppler in cardiac surgery patients. Curr Anesthesiol Rep. 2021;11(4):507–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40140–021-00483–0. [Google Scholar]
  9. CondelloI, LorussoR, SantarpinoG, FioreF, NassoG, SpezialeG. Clinical evaluation of micro-embolic activity with unexpected predisposing factors and performance of horizon AF PLUS during cardiopulmonary bypass. Membranes. 2022;12(5):465. https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes12050465. [Google Scholar]
  10. RoosenhoffTPA, StehouwerMC, De VroegeR, ButterRP, Van BovenWJ, BruinsP. Air removal efficiency of a venous bubble trap in a minimal extracorporeal circuit during coronary artery bypass grafting: Air removal efficiency of a venous bubble trap. Artificial Organs. 2010;34(12):1092–1098. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525–1594.2009.00986.x. [Google Scholar]
  11. JaburGN, SidhuK, WillcoxTW, MitchellSJ. Clinical evaluation of emboli removal by integrated versus non-integrated arterial filters in new generation oxygenators. Perfusion. 2016;31(5):409–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659115621614. [Google Scholar]
  12. LynchJE, WellsC, AkersT, et al. Monitoring microemboli during cardiopulmonary bypass with the EDAC® quantifier. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2010;(42):212–218. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. WillcoxTW. Microemboli in our Bypass circuits: A contemporary audit. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2009;41:31–37. [Google Scholar]
  14. DeFoeGR, DameNA, FarrellMS, RossCS, LangnerCW, LikoskyDS. Embolic activity during in vivo cardiopulmonary bypass. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2014;4(46):150–156. [Google Scholar]
  15. DoganciS, GunaydinS, KocakOM, YilmazS, DemirkilicU. Impact of the intensity of microemboli on neurocognitive outcome following cardiopulmonary bypass. Perfusion. 2013;28(3):256–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659112470693. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. GroomRC, QuinnRD, LennonP, et al. Detection and elimination of microemboli related to cardiopulmonary bypass. Circ: Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2(3):191–198. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.108.803163. [Google Scholar]
  17. DickinsonTA, RileyJB, CrowleyJC, ZabetakisPM. In vitro evaluation of the air separation ability of four cardiovascular manufacturer extracorporeal circuit designs. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2006:(38):206–213. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. JonesTJ, DealDD, VernonJC, BlackburnN, StumpDA. How effective are cardiopulmonary bypass circuits at removing gaseous microemboli? J Extra Corpor Technol. 2002;(34):34–39. [Google Scholar]
  19. MyersGJ. Preventing gaseous microemboli during blood sampling and drug administration: An in vitro investigation. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2007;39:192–198. [Google Scholar]
  20. JonesTJ, DealDD, VernonJC, BlackburnN, StumpDA. Does vacuum-assisted venous drainage increase gaseous microemboli during cardiopulmonary bypass? Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;74(6):2132–2137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(02)04081-X. [Google Scholar]
  21. NygaardK, ThiaraA, TronstadC, RingdalM, FianeA. VAVD vacuum may cause bubble transgression in membrane oxygenators. Perfusion. 2016;31(8):648–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659116651345. [Google Scholar]
  22. GallagherEG, PearsonDT. Ultrasonic identification of sources of gaseous microemboli during open heart surgery. Thorax. 1973;28(3):295–305. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.28.3.295. [Google Scholar]
  23. PearsonDT, WatsonBG, WaterhousePS. An ultrasonic analysis of the comparative efficiency of various cardiotomy reservoirs and micropore blood filters. Thorax. 1978;33(3):352–358. https://doi.org/10.1136/thx.33.3.352. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. MyersGJ, VoorheesC, HaynesR, EkeB. Post-arterial filter gaseous microemboli activity of five integral cardiotomy reservoirs during venting: An in vitro study. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2009;41:20–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. PotgerKC, CcpMA. Microbubble Transmission during cardiotomy infusion of a hardshell venous reservoir with integrated cardiotomy versus a softshell venous reservoir with separated cardiotomy: an in vitro comparison. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2013;45:77–85. [Google Scholar]
  26. MitchellS, WillcoxT, McDougalC, GormanD. Emboli generation by the Medtronic maxima hard shell adult venous reservoir in cardiopulmonary bypass circuits: a preliminary report. Perfusion. 1996;11(2):145–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765919601100208. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. BeckleyPD, ShinkoPD, SitesJP. A comparison of gaseous emboli release in five membrane oxygenators. Perfusion. 1997;12(2):133–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765919701200208. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. HerbstDP. The effects of pressure on gases in solution: possible insights to improve microbubble filtration for extracorporeal circulation. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2013;45:94–106. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. HerbstDP. Effects of purge-flow rate on microbubble capture in radial arterial-line filters. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2016;48:105–112. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. ClinganS, SchuldesM, FrancisS, HoerrH, RileyJ. In vitro elimination of gaseous microemboli utilizing hypobaric oxygenation in the Terumo® FX15 oxygenator. Perfusion. 2016;31(7):552–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659116638148. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. JohagenD, AppelbladM, SvenmarkerS. Can the oxygenator screen filter reduce gaseous microemboli? J Extra Corpor Technol. 2014;46:60–66. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. GisnarianCJ, HedmanA, ShannKG. An in-vitro study comparing the gme handling of two contemporary oxygenators. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2017;49:262–272. [Google Scholar]
  33. LiuS, NewlandRF, TullyPJ, PsychM, TubleSC, BakerRA. In vitro evaluation of gaseous microemboli handling of cardiopulmonary bypass circuits with and without integrated arterial line filters. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2011;(43):107–114. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. SathianathanS, NasirR, WangS, KunselmanAR, ÜndarA. In vitro evaluation of Capiox FX05 and RX05 oxygenators in neonatal cardiopulmonary bypass circuits with varying venous reservoir and vacuum‐assisted venous drainage levels. Artif Organs. 2020;44(1):28–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.13404. [Google Scholar]
  35. MiyamotoS, SohZ, OkaharaS, et al. Neural network-based modeling of the number of microbubbles generated with four circulation factors in cardiopulmonary bypass. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):549. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598–020-80810–3. [Google Scholar]
  36. MiyamotoS, SohZ, OkaharaS, et al. The number of microbubbles generated during cardiopulmonary bypass can be estimated using machine learning from suction flow rate, venous reservoir level, perfusion flow rate, hematocrit level, and blood temperature. IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol. 2024;5:66–74. https://doi.org/10.1109/OJEMB.2024.3350922. [Google Scholar]
  37. SanchetiM, RentschlerM, BolchC, et al. Designing an experimental method for assessing biocompatibility of circuit coatings using biomarkers for platelet activation during cardiopulmonary bypass. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2024;56(2):37–44. https://doi.org/10.1051/ject/2024003. [Google Scholar]
  38. JamiolkowskiMA, PatelM, GoldingMD, MalinauskasRA, LuQ. Comparison of animal and human blood for in vitro dynamic thrombogenicity testing of biomaterials. Artif Organs. 2022;46(12):2400–2411. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.14366. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. R Core Team (2023). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  40. BirdJC, de RuiterR, CourbinL, StoneHA. Daughter bubble cascades produced by folding of ruptured thin films. Nature. 2010;465(7299):759–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09069. [Google Scholar]
  41. HareaGT, KaraliouV, RobertsTR, et al. Dynamics of appearance and decay of gaseous microemboli during in vitro extracorporeal circulation. Perfusion. 2022;37(3):242–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659121991423. [Google Scholar]
  42. JaburGN, MerryAF, McGeorgeA, CavadinoA, DonnellyJ, MitchellSJ. A prospective observational study on the effect of emboli exposure on cerebral autoregulation in cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. Perfusion. 2022;38(5):1045–1052. https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591221094696. [Google Scholar]
  43. MuthCM, ShankES. Gas embolism. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(7):476–482. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200002173420706. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. MitchellSJ, MerryAF. Perspective on cerebral microemboli in cardiac surgery: significant problem or much ado about nothing? J Extra Corpor Technol. 2015; 47:10–15. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. StumpDA. Embolic factors associated with cardiac surgery. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2005;9(2):151–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/108925320500900208. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. GroomRC, QuinnRD, LennonP, et al. Microemboli from cardiopulmonary bypass are associated with a serum marker of brain injury. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2010;42:40–44. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. MurkinJM. Attenuation of neurologic injury during cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;72(5):S1838-S1844. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)03258-1. [Google Scholar]
  48. MitchellSJ, GormanD. The pathophysiology of cerebral arterial gas embolism. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2002;(34):18–23. [Google Scholar]
  49. MelnykV, FedorkoL, DjaianiG. Microemboli on cardiopulmonary bypass: Should we care? J Cardiothoracic Vasc Anesth. 2020;34(6):1504–1505. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2020.02.022. [Google Scholar]
  50. StehouwerMC, de VroegeR, BruggemansEF, et al. The influence of gaseous microemboli on various biomarkers after minimized cardiopulmonary bypass. Perfusion. 2020;35(3):202–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659119867572. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. WesterbergM, GäbelJ, BengtssonA, SellgrenJ, EidemO, JeppssonA. Hemodynamic effects of cardiotomy suction blood. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131(6):1352–1357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.12.067. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. SkrabalCA, KhosraviA, ChoiYH, et al. Pericardial suction blood separation attenuates inflammatory response and hemolysis after cardiopulmonary bypass. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2006;40(4):219–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/14017430600628201. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. CondelloI, SantarpinoG, NassoG, et al. Air, inflammation and biocompatibility of the extracorporeal circuits. Perfusion. 2021;36(8):781–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659120968364. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. De SomerFMJJ, VetranoMR, Van BeeckJPAJ, Van NootenGJ. Extracorporeal bubbles: a word of caution. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;10(6):995–1001. https://doi.org/10.1510/icvts.2009.229088. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. SegersT, StehouwerMC, de SomerFMJJ, de MolBA, VersluisM. Optical verification and in-vitro characterization of two commercially available acoustic bubble counters for cardiopulmonary bypass systems. Perfusion. 2018;33(1):16–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267659117722595. [Google Scholar]
  56. PuthettuM, VandenbergheS, BagnatoP, GalloM, DemertzisS. Gaseous microemboli in the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit: presentation of a systematic data collection protocol applied at Istituto Cardiocentro Ticino. Cureus. 14(2):e22310. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.22310. [Google Scholar]

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.