Issitt Richard, Sheppard Stuart
Perfusion Department, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Perfusion. 2011 Jan;26(1):51-5. doi: 10.1177/0267659110382686. Epub 2010 Aug 26.
The pathological effects of pericardial suction blood (PSB) have been well described in numerous studies for many years; yet, despite this, there is no definitive answer to the question of how best to attenuate this pathology. More recently, large studies have shown that, whilst PSB contains many factors indicating its pathological potential, the direct re-infusion of PSB and residual pump volume (RPV) after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) potentially reduces the risk of transfusion and is no more harmful to the patient than the re-infusion of cell salvage-processed PSB after CPB.We conducted a telephone audit of UK perfusion units to determine if current protocols and practices reflected this.We found that there is a definite majority processing RPV with cell-saving devices, with many units defining their protocols as "surgeon dependent" whilst half immediately returned PSB to the systemic circulation whilst on CPB. The results of this national audit suggest that the issue of dealing with PSB and RPV is confused, heavily influenced by surgical and anaesthetic preference and lacking clear guidance and high quality evidence.
心包腔吸除血液(PSB)的病理效应在多年来的众多研究中已有详尽描述;然而,即便如此,对于如何最佳减轻这种病理状态的问题仍没有确切答案。最近,大型研究表明,虽然PSB含有许多表明其病理潜能的因素,但体外循环(CPB)后直接回输PSB和残余泵血量(RPV)有可能降低输血风险,且对患者的危害并不比CPB后回输经细胞回收处理的PSB更大。我们对英国灌注单位进行了电话审核,以确定当前的方案和做法是否反映了这一点。我们发现,确实大多数单位使用细胞保存装置处理RPV,许多单位将其方案定义为“取决于外科医生”,而有一半的单位在CPB期间立即将PSB回输到体循环。这项全国性审核的结果表明,处理PSB和RPV的问题很混乱,严重受到手术和麻醉偏好的影响,并且缺乏明确的指导和高质量证据。