Suppr超能文献

客观评估各种静脉插管的疗效。

Objective evaluation of the efficacy of various venous cannulas.

作者信息

Arom K V, Ellestad C, Grover F L, Trinkle J K

出版信息

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1981 Mar;81(3):464-9.

PMID:7464209
Abstract

Six venous cannulas (USCI No. 32, USCI No. 40, USCI No. 44, Sarns No. 40, Sarns two-stage cavoatrial, and Ferguson Argyle No. 40) were tested for efficiency of venous flow during cardiopulmonary bypass, with and without aortic cross-clamping. Each cannula was tested six times in dog models (twice in each of three dogs) and the data were averaged. The tip of the cavoatrial Sarns catheter was positioned as recommended. Two No. 32 USCI caval cannulas were placed either with or without caval snaring. The other cannulas were placed in the right atrium. Arterial flow was constant at 80 ml/kg/min, and aortic pressure averaged 84 mm Hg. Central venous pressure and the right ventricle excluded from the pulmonary artery so that blood which was not drained via the venous cannula was measured. Each single atrial cannula decompressed the right atrium (right atrial pressure 0 to 1 mm Hg) better than two caval cannulas (right atrial pressure 0 to 2 mm Hg). Caval snaring did not empty the right atrium (right atrial pressure 2 to 5 mm Hg) as well as any single cannula. The cavoatrial Sarns catheter did not empty the right atrium as well (right atrial pressure 2 to 4 mm Hg), but drained blood from the inferior vena cava (central venous pressure 0 mm Hg) better than other atrial cannulas (central venous pressure 1 to 5 mm Hg). All of the atrial cannulas performed equally well. The right ventricular vent flow varied between 63 and 70 ml/min with each of the atrial cannulas but rose to 85 ml/min with the cavoatrial Sarns catheter and 190 and 74 ml/min during caval cannulation with and without snaring, respectively. Aortic cross-clamping eliminated coronary sinus flow and decreased right ventricular vent flow. Therefore, a single atrial cannula is more efficient in draining blood from the right side of the heart than are two caval or a cavoatrial cannula. This advantage is negated by aortic cross-clamping.

摘要

对六种静脉插管(美国外科器械公司32号、40号、44号,Sarns 40号,Sarns两阶段腔房插管,以及弗格森·阿盖尔40号)在体外循环期间有或无主动脉交叉钳夹情况下的静脉引流效率进行了测试。每种插管在犬模型中测试六次(在三只犬中各测试两次),并对数据进行平均。腔房Sarns导管的尖端按推荐位置放置。两根美国外科器械公司32号腔静脉插管在有或无腔静脉圈套的情况下放置。其他插管置于右心房。动脉流量恒定为80毫升/千克/分钟,主动脉平均压力为84毫米汞柱。排除肺动脉中的中心静脉压和右心室,以便测量未通过静脉插管引流的血液。每根单心房插管比两根腔静脉插管能更好地使右心房减压(右心房压力为0至1毫米汞柱,两根腔静脉插管时右心房压力为0至2毫米汞柱)。腔静脉圈套不如任何单根插管那样能排空右心房(右心房压力为2至5毫米汞柱)。腔房Sarns导管也不能很好地排空右心房(右心房压力为2至4毫米汞柱),但从下腔静脉引流血液(中心静脉压为0毫米汞柱)比其他心房插管(中心静脉压为1至5毫米汞柱)更好。所有心房插管的表现相当。使用每种心房插管时右心室引流流量在63至70毫升/分钟之间变化,但使用腔房Sarns导管时升至85毫升/分钟,在有或无圈套的腔静脉插管期间分别为190和74毫升/分钟。主动脉交叉钳夹消除了冠状窦血流并降低了右心室引流流量。因此,单根心房插管在从心脏右侧引流血液方面比两根腔静脉插管或一根腔房插管更有效。这种优势在主动脉交叉钳夹时被抵消。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验