Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Aortic venting. Comparison of vent effectiveness.

Authors: J D, Marco; H B, Barner;

Aortic venting. Comparison of vent effectiveness.

Abstract

Three commercially available aortic vents have been evaluated as to effectiveness in removing small volumes of air introduced into a mock circulatory circuit. Without aspiration, Vent 2 was the most effective and removed 58 per cent of 0.1 ml., 90 per cent of 0.5 ml., and 74 per cent of 1.0 ml. boluses at a cardiac output of 2 L. At a cardiac output of 4 L., Vent 2 removed 42, 76, and 49 per cent, respectively. With aspiration (Vent 2 not designed for aspiration) and a 2 L. cardiac output, Vents 1 and 3 removed 84 to 98 per cent of 0.1 ml., 68 to 92 per cent of 0.5 ml., and 74 to 86 per cent of 1.0 ml. boluses. With aspiration and a 4 L. cardiac output, Vent 3 was significantly more effective than Vent 1 and removed 92 to 94 per cent of 0.1 ml., 82 to 86 per cent of 0.5 ml., and 77 to 80 per cent of 1.0 ml. boluses. One liter of canine blood was aspirated through Vents 1 and 3 and a flow rate of 250 ml. per minute. For Vent 1, serum hemoglobin levels increased from 40 to 249 mg. per 100 ml. and for Vent 3 from 49 to 212 mg. per 100 ml. There are significant differences in the ability of commercially available aortic vents to remove small air bubbles trapped in the heart after initial direct cardiac venting. Vents having the capability of aspiration are more effective and result in acceptable hemolysis.

Keywords

Cardiopulmonary Bypass, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Blood Circulation, Embolism, Air, Humans, Cardiac Output, Cardiac Surgical Procedures, Suction, Models, Biological, Aorta

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    6
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
6
Average
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!