English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Gaseous microemboli (GME) introduced during cardiac surgery are considered asa potential source of morbidity, which has driven the development of the firstbubble counters. Two new generation bubble counters claim correct sizing andcounting of GME. This in-vitro study aims to validate the accuracy of twobubble counters using monodisperse bubbles in a highly controlled setting atlow GME concentrations. Monodisperse GME with a radius of 43 {\mu}m wereproduced in a microfluidic chip. Directly after their formation, they wereinjected one-by-one into the BCC200 and the EDAC sensors. GME size and countwere optically verified using high-speed imaging. During best-case scenarios orlow GME concentrations of GME with a size of 43 {\mu}m in radius in an in-vitrosetup, the BCC200 overestimates GME size by a factor of 2 to 3 while the EDACunderestimates the average GME size by at least a factor of two. The BCC200overestimates the GME concentration by approximately 20% while the EDACoverestimates the concentration by nearly one order of magnitude. Nevertheless,the calculated total GME volume is only over-predicted by a factor 2 since theEDAC underestimates the actual GME size. For the BCC200, the total GME volumewas over-predicted by 25 times due to the over-estimation of GME size. Themeasured errors in the absolute sizing/counting of GME do not imply that allresults obtained using the bubble counters are insignificant or invalid. Arelative change in bubble size or bubble concentration can accurately bemeasured. However, care must be taken in the interpretation of the results andtheir absolute values. Moreover, the devices cannot be used interchangeablywhen reporting GME activity. Nevertheless, both devices can be used to studythe relative air removal characteristics of CPB components or for thequantitative monitoring of GME production during CPB interventions.

Optical verification and in-vitro characterization of two commercially available acoustic bubble counters for cardiopulmonary bypass systems