Liu Ting, Qin Zhen, Luo Ming, Tan Zhao-Xia, Xiong Ji-Yue, Gu Gang-Jian, Yu Xiang, Li Qi, Zhou Rong-Hua
Department of Anesthesiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Perfusion. 2019 Apr;34(3):203-210. doi: 10.1177/0267659118806120. Epub 2018 Oct 19.
A multi-discipline cardiac and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) team simulation scenario was established to compare three different de-airing approaches dealing with massive air embolism in CPB, so as to formulate a standardized procedure to handle this adverse acute event more proficiently and ensure clinical safety.
A simulation-based clinical CPB massive air embolism scenario was developed by a cardiac and CPB team. Study Objects: Five licensed perfusionists and five CPB trainees were matched randomly into five pairs. Each pair would simulate the three different de-airing approaches separately as followed: (1) Conventional Method: arterial line filter (ALF) de-airing purge line and oxygenator self-recirculation bypass were used to de-air; (2) Arterial-Venous Loop (A-V Loop) Method: surgeons reconnected the arterial and venous lines to de-air by restoring the original priming A-V loop configuration; (3) Isolation of the ALF Method: this ensures de-bubbling of the CPB circuit, but bypasses the ALF function. Assessment Criteria: (1) Times to recovery (duration of the circulation suspension); (2) Subjective evaluation of skill and non-skill performances.
As to times to recovery, the Conventional Method group took 290.6 s ± 36.2, the A-V Loop Method group took 196.8 s ± 52.0 and the Isolation of ALF group took 99.4 s ± 15.1. The statistical difference is significant among the three groups (p<0.01). The subjective evaluation of training performance indicates that this simulation-based training is effective in assessing both skill and non-skill abilities.
CPB simulation-based training was effective in comparing de-airing strategies and can instruct perfusion practices how to optimize techniques. For well-trained, multi-discipline cardiac teams, the A-V Loop Method is highly efficient and reliable in managing CPB massive air embolism. For cardiac teams that do not have this sophisticated training, the Isolation of ALF Method should be their alternative option.
建立一个多学科心脏及体外循环(CPB)团队模拟场景,以比较三种不同的排气方法处理CPB中大量空气栓塞的情况,从而制定一个标准化程序,更熟练地处理这一不良急性事件并确保临床安全。
由心脏及CPB团队开发一个基于模拟的临床CPB大量空气栓塞场景。研究对象:五名有执照的灌注师和五名CPB实习生随机配对成五组。每组将分别模拟三种不同的排气方法如下:(1)传统方法:使用动脉管路过滤器(ALF)排气冲洗管路和氧合器自身循环旁路进行排气;(2)动静脉环路(A-V环路)方法:外科医生重新连接动脉和静脉管路,通过恢复原始预充的A-V环路配置进行排气;(3)隔离ALF方法:这确保了CPB回路的除泡,但绕过了ALF功能。评估标准:(1)恢复时间(循环暂停持续时间);(2)对技能和非技能表现的主观评价。
关于恢复时间,传统方法组用时290.6秒±36.2秒,A-V环路方法组用时196.8秒±52.0秒,隔离ALF组用时99.4秒±15.1秒。三组之间的统计差异显著(p<0.01)。训练表现的主观评价表明,这种基于模拟的训练在评估技能和非技能能力方面是有效的。
基于CPB模拟的训练在比较排气策略方面是有效的,并且可以指导灌注实践如何优化技术。对于训练有素的多学科心脏团队,A-V环路方法在处理CPB大量空气栓塞方面高效且可靠。对于没有这种复杂训练的心脏团队,隔离ALF方法应是他们的替代选择。