[National survey on short-term circulatory and/or respiratory support in 2009]. / Enquête nationale sur l'assistance circulatoire et respiratoire de courte durée en 2009.

OBJECTIVE: Indications for short-term circulatory and/or respiratory support (STCRS) increased during the last years. The goal of this survey was to characterize this activity in France in 2009. STUDY DESIGN: Observational retrospective pluricentral. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Each center of cardiothoracic surgery received a questionnaire validated by the Société française de perfusion about the activity, materials and organization used for STCRS. Data were expressed as percentages or median (25-75 percentiles). RESULTS: Forty-one centers on 61 (67%) answered. STCRS was performed respectively by 33 (80.5 %), 36 (87.8 %) and 39 (95.1 %) of centers in 2007, 2008 and 2009 including 10 [4-26], 18 [6-29] and 18 [5-33] cases/center per year. In 2009, types of STCRS installed were veno-arterial in 39 centres (95.1 %), veno-venous in 27 (65.9 %) and Novalung(®) in four (9.8 %), including 18 [5-32], five [2-7] and 15 [1-17] cases respectively. Twenty-nine centers (70.7%) installed STCRS outside the operating theater, and 24 (58.5%) in non-cardiothoracic surgery. A mobile circulatory support unit was created in eight centers (19.5%), however 21 (51.2%) have installed STCRS externally, at distances between 10 [5-55] to 100 [15-200] km, using emergency vehicles in most of the cases (90.5%), but helicopter seldom (19%). CONCLUSION: STCRS has increased over the last few years in France. Externalized activity outside the operating theater was important, time-consuming and used hospital resources therefore modifying the professional activity of perfusionists.

[Survey on the training and organisation of cardiopulmonary bypass for cardiac surgery in France]. / Enquête française sur la prise en charge de la circulation extracorporelle et la formation des perfusionnistes en 2008.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is a medical act that can be performed by nurses as long as they are constantly supervised by a physician. No initial formalized training course is required. The personal responsibilities of nurses and physicians about CPB have not been defined. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was: to list perfusionists; to evaluate the training of perfusionists; to determine which physicians are considered as in charge during actions performed by paramedics, as well as their qualification; to point out the changes since 1997. TYPE OF STUDY: Professional practice assessment. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all perfusionists in activity in France. RESULTS: There were 71% of replies. We found an aging of perfusionists (median 49 years vs. 40 years in 1997), a fall in the proportion of trained physicians (13% of perfusionists had a training course in adequacy with professional guidelines, 25% of perfusionists said they worked with a physician who could intervene at all time, and 61% declared only one physician was in charge). There is no CPB referent in 26% of perfusion units. CONCLUSION: An urgent need appears to define the respective responsibilities of medical and paramedical perfusion staff, especially as this technique spreads out of the conventional cardiac surgery operating theatres.