Is elimination of cardiotomy suction preferable in aortic valve replacement? Assessment of perioperative coagulation, fibrinolysis and inflammation.

OBJECTIVES Guidelines recommend the avoidance of direct return of pericardial blood based on evidence from coronary surgery. A continuous auto-transfusion system (CATS) can be a good alternative to cardiotomy suction by reinfusing aspirated pericardial blood without the necessity of intermittent collection. To clarify the effects of direct return of pericardial blood in aortic valve replacement (AVR), we compared the effects of cardiotomy suction and an alternative CATS on perioperative coagulofibrinolysis and inflammation systems, and clinical outcomes. METHODS In 40 AVR operations between April 2009 and April 2011, the retransfusion method of pericardial blood during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) was allocated to the use of cardiotomy suction (non-Cell-Saver group, n = 20) or CATS (Cell-Saver group, n = 20) under identical protocols of anticoagulation and transfusion. The blood from the left ventricular vent was returned to the venous reservoir. We obtained blood samples at nine points up to the morning after surgery. RESULTS Perioperative values for coagulofibrinolysis markers, such as thrombin-antithrombin III complex, fibrinogen degeneration products, D-dimer and plasmin-α2 plasmin inhibitor complex, were significantly lower in the Cell-Saver group than those in the non-Cell-Saver group from 1 h after the initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass to 3 or 6 h after termination of cardiopulmonary bypass (P < 0.05 for all markers). A fibrinolysis inhibition marker of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and the inflammation markers of interleukin-6, 8 and 10 as well as tumour necrosis factor-α were not significantly different. The amount of packed red blood cells required after the termination of CPB was significantly less in the Cell-Saver group compared with that in the non-Cell-Saver group (P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in the other clinical outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS In AVR, the avoidance of direct return of pericardial blood induced considerable suppressions of coagulofibrinolysis responses. A CATS is a favourable alternative for managing pericardial blood during cardiopulmonary bypass. Our results support the published guidelines and could help to establish ideal strategies for eliminating the use of cardiotomy suction, thus facilitating less-invasive valve surgeries with marked suppression of coagulofibrinolysis responses.

[1]  P. Johnsson,et al.  A randomized study of coronary artery bypass surgery performed with the Resting Heart™ System utilizing a low vs a standard dosage of heparin. , 2012, Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.

[2]  B. D. de Mol,et al.  The effects of conventional extracorporeal circulation versus miniaturized extracorporeal circulation on microcirculation during cardiopulmonary bypass-assisted coronary artery bypass graft surgery. , 2012, Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.

[3]  S. Suehiro,et al.  Cardiotomy suction, but not open venous reservoirs, activates coagulofibrinolysis in coronary artery surgery. , 2011, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[4]  M. Czerny,et al.  Autotransfusion system or integrated automatic suction device in minimized extracorporeal circulation: influence on coagulation and inflammatory response. , 2011, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[5]  A. Haneya,et al.  Minimized extracorporeal circulation system in coronary artery bypass surgery: a 10-year single-center experience with 2243 patients. , 2011, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[6]  J. Kelder,et al.  Combined coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement with minimal extracorporeal closed circuit circulation versus standard cardiopulmonary bypass. , 2010, Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.

[7]  T. Fukui,et al.  Closed cardiopulmonary bypass circuits suppress thrombin generation during coronary artery bypass grafting. , 2010, Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery.

[8]  D. Bainbridge,et al.  The Efficacy of an Intraoperative Cell Saver During Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials , 2009, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[9]  O. Alfieri,et al.  Institutional report - Cardiopulmonary bypass Comparison of minimally invasive closed circuit versus standard extracorporeal circulation for aortic valve replacement: a randomized study , 2009 .

[10]  F. Mouquet,et al.  Comparison of blood activation in the wound, active vent, and cardiopulmonary bypass circuit. , 2008, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[11]  W. van Oeveren,et al.  Do repeated runs of a cell saver device increase the pro-inflammatory properties of washed blood? , 2008, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[12]  M. Borger,et al.  Continuous-Flow Cell Saver Reduces Cognitive Decline in Elderly Patients After Coronary Bypass Surgery , 2007, Circulation.

[13]  G. Wells,et al.  The Cardiotomy Trial: A Randomized, Double-Blind Study to Assess the Effect of Processing of Shed Blood During Cardiopulmonary Bypass on Transfusion and Neurocognitive Function , 2007, Circulation.

[14]  T. Gardner,et al.  An evidence-based review of the practice of cardiopulmonary bypass in adults: a focus on neurologic injury, glycemic control, hemodilution, and the inflammatory response. , 2006, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[15]  O. Ponzio,et al.  Comparison of the inflammatory response between miniaturized and standard CPB circuits in aortic valve surgery. , 2006, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[16]  F. Rubens,et al.  Are we doing everything we can to conserve blood during bypass? A national survey , 2005, Perfusion.

[17]  A. Bengtsson,et al.  Coronary surgery without cardiotomy suction and autotransfusion reduces the postoperative systemic inflammatory response. , 2004, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[18]  C. Mazer,et al.  Continuous and discontinuous cell-washing autotransfusion systems. , 2004, Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia.

[19]  R. Habib,et al.  Adverse effects of low hematocrit during cardiopulmonary bypass in the adult: should current practice be changed? , 2003, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[20]  L. Cohn,et al.  Cardiac Surgery in the Adult , 2003 .

[21]  S. Suvarna,et al.  A prospective randomised comparison of cardiotomy suction and cell saver for recycling shed blood during cardiac surgery. , 2003, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[22]  O. Ponzio,et al.  Reduction of the inflammatory response following coronary bypass grafting with total minimal extracorporeal circulation. , 2002, European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery.

[23]  A. Larsson,et al.  Coagulation, fibrinolysis, and cell activation in patients and shed mediastinal blood during coronary artery bypass grafting with a new heparin-coated surface. , 2002, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[24]  J. Arnout,et al.  Tissue factor as the main activator of the coagulation system during cardiopulmonary bypass. , 2002, The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery.

[25]  H. Philippou,et al.  Mechanisms of thrombin generation during surgery and cardiopulmonary bypass. , 1993, Blood.