Gaseous Micro-Embolic Activity and Goal-Directed Perfusion Management in a Closed System for Cardiopulmonary Bypass and Minimally Invasive Extracorporeal Circulation during Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) techniques are becoming minimally invasive in clinical practice. The literature describes various extracorporeal techniques which seek to eliminate air-blood contact and reduce both hemodilution and the contact surface such as in Minimally invasive Extracorporeal Circulation (MiECC) and closed systems for CPB. However, the delivery of micro-embolic activity in the circuit and metabolic activity in terms of oxygen delivery for Goal-Directed Perfusion (GDP) management, in relation to the patient's blood volume and central venous pressure, have never been related and correlated. In this report, we present a cohort study that investigated these aspects between the closed SVR2000 System and modular MiECC (both from Eurosets SRL, Medolla, Italy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively and used to compare 60 consecutive patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery by two surgeons using an SVR2000 oxygenator in 30 procedures, with a matched cohort of patients from the same period who underwent isolated CABG surgery by two other surgeons using a modular MiECC in 30 procedures. The primary endpoints collected were data on micro-embolic activity, including the number of gaseous micro-emboli in the circuit during the procedure, the mean maintenance value of oxygen delivery (DO2) and data relating to venous return volume and central venous pressure (CVP). RESULTS: During the CPB procedures, the following values were recorded for the closed SVR2000 and MiECC groups, respectively: the average number of gaseous micro-emboli (GME) in the venous line, 833 ± 23 vs 1221 ± 45 (p = 0.028); GME in the outlet of the pump, 375 ± 45 vs 429 ± 76 (p = 0.89; GME in the arterial line, 189 ± 36 vs 205 ± 27 (p = 0.92), and the volume of GME in the arterial line (mL), 0.32± 12 vs 0.49± 17 (p = 0.93). The mean Indexed Oxygen Delivery (DO2i) during cross-clamp (ml/min/m2) was 319 ±12 vs 278 ±9 (p = 0.0019), respectively. The maximum mean volume of venous return in the soft-shell venous reservoir (ml) was 1801 ±128 vs 824 ±192 (p = 0.038). The mean central venous pressure (CVP) during cross-clamp (mmHg) was 0 ± 2 vs 6 ± 2 (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the results in the closed SVR2000 group were not statistically inferior to those in the modular MiECC group in terms of gaseous micro-embolic activity during CPB. Our analysis showed an important reduction of GME delivery in both systems. The closed SVR2000 group showed better management for GDP in terms of DO2i, associated with the flexibility of dynamic volume management and the absence of cavitation and regulation of the rate per minute and pump flow, which were reported in the MiECC group. The SVR2000 and modular MiECC systems were both safe and effective in perioperative practice without iatrogenic problems.

Sublingual Sufentanil Tablet System Versus Continuous Morphine Infusion for Postoperative Analgesia in Cardiac Surgery Patients.

OBJECTIVE(S): To assess the effectiveness and side effects of a patient-controlled sublingual sufentanil tablet system for postoperative analgesia after cardiac surgery and to compare it to a nurse-controlled continuous morphine infusion. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Single university academic center. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery, which included a sternotomy. INTERVENTIONS: Sublingual sufentanil tablet system versus nurse-controlled continuous morphine infusion. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 483 cardiac surgery patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 64 patients completed the study. No statistically significant differences were found for baseline characteristics between both groups. All mean numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores from after extubation until intensive care unit discharge were ≤3 in both groups. The cumulative mean NRS pain score from 24 hours after extubation (primary outcome) (t = hours after extubation) was significantly different in favor of the morphine group: (t = 0-24) (0.8 [0.7] v 1.3 [0.8]; p = 0.006). Later cumulative mean pain scores were also in favor of the morphine group: (t = 24-48) (0.2 [0.3] v 0.6 [0.5]; p = 0.001) and (t = 48-63) (0.0 [0.0] v 0.1 [0.2]; p = 0.013). The cumulative opioid dose (in milligrams intravenous morphine equivalents) was significantly higher in the morphine group compared with the sublingual sufentanil group (241.94 [218.73] v 39.84 [21.96]; p = 0.0001). No differences were found for the incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting, sedation, hypoventilation, bradycardia, or hypotension between both groups (secondary outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Despite resulting in statistically significantly higher pain scores, a patient-controlled sublingual sufentanil tablet system offers adequate analgesia after cardiac surgery and reduces opioid consumption when compared with continuous morphine infusion.

Energy expenditure of patients on ECMO: A prospective pilot study.

BACKGROUND: An optimal nutritional approach sustained by convenient monitoring of metabolic status and reliable assessment of energy expenditure (EE) may improve the outcome of critically ill patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We previously demonstrated the feasibility of indirect calorimetry (IC)-the standard of care technique to determine caloric targets-in patients undergoing ECMO. This study aims to compare measured with calculated EE during ECMO treatment. We additionally provide median EE values for use in settings where IC is not available. METHODS: IC was performed in seven stable ECMO patients. Gas exchange was analyzed at the ventilator, and ECMO side and values were introduced in a modified Weir formula to calculate resting EE. Results were compared with EE calculated with the Harris-Benedict equation and with the 25 kcal/kg/day ESPEN recommendation. RESULTS: Total median oxygen consumption rate was 196 (Q1-Q3 158-331) mL/min, and total median carbon dioxide production was 150 (Q1-Q3 104-203) mL/min. Clinically relevant differences between calculated and measured EE were observed in all patients. The median EE was 1334 (Q1-Q3 1134-2119) kcal/24 hours or 18 (Q1-Q3 15-27) kcal/kg/day. CONCLUSION: Compared with measured EE, calculation of EE both over- and underestimated caloric needs during ECMO treatment. Despite a median EE of 21 kcal/kg/day, large variability in metabolic rate was found and demands further investigation.