Premium
Evaluation of C apiox RX 25 and Q uadrox‐i A dult Hollow Fiber Membrane Oxygenators in a Simulated Cardiopulmonary Bypass Circuit
Author(s) -
Wang Shigang,
Kunselman Allen R.,
Ündar Akif
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
artificial organs
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.684
H-Index - 76
eISSN - 1525-1594
pISSN - 0160-564X
DOI - 10.1111/aor.12633
Subject(s) - oxygenator , cardiopulmonary bypass , hemodynamics , membrane oxygenator , medicine , anesthesia , hematocrit , arterial line , biomedical engineering , cardiology
The C apiox RX 25 and Q uadrox‐i Adult oxygenators are commonly used in clinical adult cardiopulmonary bypass circuits. This study was designed to test the effectiveness of two adult oxygenators in order to evaluate gaseous microemboli ( GME ) trapping capability and hemodynamic performance. A simulated adult CPB circuit was used and primed with R inger's lactate and packed red blood cells (hematocrit 25%). All trials were conducted at flow rates of 2–5 L/min (1 L/min increments) with a closed and open arterial filter purge line at 35° C . The postcannula pressure was maintained at 100 mm H g. After a 5 cc of bolus air was introduced into the venous line, an E mboli D etection and C lassification system was used to detect and classify GME at the preoxygenator, postoxygenator, and precannula sites. At the same time, real‐time pressure and flow data were recorded, and hemodynamic energy was calculated using a custom‐made data acquisition system and L abview software. Our results showed that the oxygenator pressure drops of Q uadrox‐i A dult oxygenator were lower than C apiox RX 25 at all flow rates. The Q uadrox‐i A dult oxygenator retained more hemodynamic energy across the oxygenator. Both oxygenators could trap the majority of GME , but C apiox RX 25 did better than the Q uadrox‐i A dult oxygenator. No GME was delivered to the pseudo patient at all flow rates in the C apiox group. The C apiox RX 25 venous reservoir could capture more GME at lower flow rates, while the Q uadrox‐i A dult venous reservoir performed better at higher flow rates. An open arterial filter purge line reduced GME slightly in the Capiox group, but GME increased in the Q uadrox group. The Q uadrox‐i A dult oxygenator is a low‐resistance, high‐compliance oxygenator. The GME handling ability of C apiox RX 25 performed well under our clinical setting. Further optimized design for the venous/cardiotomy reservoir is needed.