Donndorf Peter, Park Hannah, Vollmar Brigitte, Alms Angela, Gierer Philipp, Steinhoff Gustav, Kaminski Alexander
Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany
Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014 Aug;19(2):211-7. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivu131. Epub 2014 May 5.
Closed minimal extracorporeal circulation (MECC) systems currently do not represent the standard of surgical care for open-heart surgery. Yet, considering the beneficial results reported for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, we used an MECC system in aortic valve replacement (AVR) and analysed the effects on intraoperative microvascular perfusion in comparison with conventional open extracorporeal circulation (CECC).
In the current study, we analysed alterations in microvascular perfusion at 4 predefined time points (T1-T4) during surgical AVR utilizing orthogonal polarization spectral (OPS) imaging. Twenty patients were randomized for being operated on utilizing either MECC or CECC. Changes in functional capillary density (FCD, cm/cm(2)), mircovascular blood flow velocity (mm/s) and vessel diameter (μm) were analysed by a blinded investigator.
After the start of extracorporeal circulation and aortic cross-clamping (T2), both groups showed a significant drop in FCD, but with a significantly higher FCD in the MECC group (153.1 ± 15.0 cm/cm² in the CECC group vs 160.8 ± 12.2 cm/cm² in the MECC group, P = 0.034). During the late phase of the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) (T3), the FCD was still significantly depressed in both treatment groups (153.5 ± 14.6 cm/cm² in the CECC group, P <0.05 vs 'T1'; 159.5 ± 12.4 cm/cm² in the MECC group, P <0.05 versus 'T1'). After termination of CPB (T4), the FCD recovered in both groups to baseline values. Microvascular blood flow velocity tended to remain at a higher level in the MECC group, whereas haemodilution during CPB was significantly reduced in the MECC group.
The use of MECC in AVR did not affect procedural safety and, resulted in beneficial preservation of microvascular blood flow velocity and significantly reduced haemodilution during CPB. In contrast to CABG surgery, the use of MECC did not improve FCD during surgical AVR. Clinical advantages possibly resulting from attenuated haemodilution and preservation of microvascular blood flow velocity require further validation in larger patient cohorts.
目前,闭合式微创体外循环(MECC)系统并非心脏直视手术的标准外科治疗方式。然而,鉴于冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)手术所报告的有益结果,我们在主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)中使用了MECC系统,并与传统的开放式体外循环(CECC)相比较,分析其对术中微血管灌注的影响。
在本研究中,我们利用正交偏振光谱(OPS)成像分析了手术AVR期间4个预定义时间点(T1 - T4)微血管灌注的变化。20例患者被随机分为接受MECC或CECC手术。由一名不知情的研究者分析功能毛细血管密度(FCD,cm/cm²)、微血管血流速度(mm/s)和血管直径(μm)的变化。
体外循环开始和主动脉阻断后(T2),两组的FCD均显著下降,但MECC组的FCD显著更高(CECC组为153.1±15.0 cm/cm²,MECC组为160.8±12.2 cm/cm²,P = 0.034)。在体外循环(CPB)后期(T3),两个治疗组的FCD仍显著降低(CECC组为153.5±14.6 cm/cm²,与“T1”相比P <0.05;MECC组为159.5±12.4 cm/cm²,与“T1”相比P <0.05)。CPB结束后(T4),两组的FCD均恢复至基线值。MECC组的微血管血流速度倾向于保持在较高水平,而MECC组在CPB期间的血液稀释显著减少。
在AVR中使用MECC不影响手术安全性,且能有益地保持微血管血流速度,并显著减少CPB期间的血液稀释。与CABG手术不同,在手术AVR中使用MECC并未改善FCD。血液稀释减轻和微血管血流速度保持可能带来的临床优势需要在更大规模的患者队列中进一步验证。