Impact of oxygenator selection on hemodynamic energy indicators under pulsatile and nonpulsatile flow in a neonatal extracorporeal life support model

Rahul Vasavada, Sameer Khan, Feng Qiu, Allen Kunselman, Akif Undar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study compared the quality of perfusion delivered by two oxygenators-the hollow-fiber membrane Capiox Baby RX05 and silicone membrane Medtronic 0800-using hemodynamic energy indicators. The oxygenators were tested across varying flow rates and perfusion modes in a neonatal extracorporeal life support (ECLS) model. The experimental ECLS circuit included a Jostra HL-20 heart/lung machine with Jostra Roller pump, oxygenators with associated tubing and components, and a neonatal pseudo-patient. We used a 40/60 glycerin/water solution in the circuit as a blood analog. Testing occurred at flow rates of 250, 500, and 750mL/min at 37°C under both pulsatile and nonpulsatile flow conditions. Hemodynamic data points consisted of recording 20-s intervals of data, and a total of 96 experimental repetitions were conducted. The pressure drop across the Capiox Baby RX05 oxygenator was significantly lower than the pressure drop across the Medtronic 0800 at all flow rates and perfusion modes. Furthermore, the Medtronic 0800 oxygenator showed significantly lower post-oxygenator energy equivalent pressures, total hemodynamic energy values, and surplus hemodynamic energy retention values compared to those of the Capiox Baby RX05. These results indicate the Medtronic 0800 oxygenator significantly dampens the hemodynamic energy compared to the Capiox Baby RX05. Consequently, clinical use of the Medtronic 0800 in a pulsatile ECLS setting is likely to mitigate the benefits provided by pulsatile flow. In contrast, the Capiox Baby RX05 better transmits hemodynamic energy to the patient with much lower pressure drop.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalArtificial Organs
Volume35
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2011

Fingerprint

Oxygenators
Pulsatile Flow
Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Hemodynamics
Pressure drop
Pressure
Perfusion
Flow rate
Heart-Lung Machine
Membranes
Pulsatile flow
Networks (circuits)
Silicones
Tubing
Glycerol
Blood
Pumps
Water
Fibers
Testing

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Bioengineering
  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Biomaterials
  • Biomedical Engineering

Cite this

@article{5d63598eef05445783d9a2b472b8ce1c,
title = "Impact of oxygenator selection on hemodynamic energy indicators under pulsatile and nonpulsatile flow in a neonatal extracorporeal life support model",
abstract = "This study compared the quality of perfusion delivered by two oxygenators-the hollow-fiber membrane Capiox Baby RX05 and silicone membrane Medtronic 0800-using hemodynamic energy indicators. The oxygenators were tested across varying flow rates and perfusion modes in a neonatal extracorporeal life support (ECLS) model. The experimental ECLS circuit included a Jostra HL-20 heart/lung machine with Jostra Roller pump, oxygenators with associated tubing and components, and a neonatal pseudo-patient. We used a 40/60 glycerin/water solution in the circuit as a blood analog. Testing occurred at flow rates of 250, 500, and 750mL/min at 37°C under both pulsatile and nonpulsatile flow conditions. Hemodynamic data points consisted of recording 20-s intervals of data, and a total of 96 experimental repetitions were conducted. The pressure drop across the Capiox Baby RX05 oxygenator was significantly lower than the pressure drop across the Medtronic 0800 at all flow rates and perfusion modes. Furthermore, the Medtronic 0800 oxygenator showed significantly lower post-oxygenator energy equivalent pressures, total hemodynamic energy values, and surplus hemodynamic energy retention values compared to those of the Capiox Baby RX05. These results indicate the Medtronic 0800 oxygenator significantly dampens the hemodynamic energy compared to the Capiox Baby RX05. Consequently, clinical use of the Medtronic 0800 in a pulsatile ECLS setting is likely to mitigate the benefits provided by pulsatile flow. In contrast, the Capiox Baby RX05 better transmits hemodynamic energy to the patient with much lower pressure drop.",
author = "Rahul Vasavada and Sameer Khan and Feng Qiu and Allen Kunselman and Akif Undar",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1525-1594.2011.01206.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
journal = "Artificial Organs",
issn = "0160-564X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of oxygenator selection on hemodynamic energy indicators under pulsatile and nonpulsatile flow in a neonatal extracorporeal life support model

AU - Vasavada, Rahul

AU - Khan, Sameer

AU - Qiu, Feng

AU - Kunselman, Allen

AU - Undar, Akif

PY - 2011/6/1

Y1 - 2011/6/1

N2 - This study compared the quality of perfusion delivered by two oxygenators-the hollow-fiber membrane Capiox Baby RX05 and silicone membrane Medtronic 0800-using hemodynamic energy indicators. The oxygenators were tested across varying flow rates and perfusion modes in a neonatal extracorporeal life support (ECLS) model. The experimental ECLS circuit included a Jostra HL-20 heart/lung machine with Jostra Roller pump, oxygenators with associated tubing and components, and a neonatal pseudo-patient. We used a 40/60 glycerin/water solution in the circuit as a blood analog. Testing occurred at flow rates of 250, 500, and 750mL/min at 37°C under both pulsatile and nonpulsatile flow conditions. Hemodynamic data points consisted of recording 20-s intervals of data, and a total of 96 experimental repetitions were conducted. The pressure drop across the Capiox Baby RX05 oxygenator was significantly lower than the pressure drop across the Medtronic 0800 at all flow rates and perfusion modes. Furthermore, the Medtronic 0800 oxygenator showed significantly lower post-oxygenator energy equivalent pressures, total hemodynamic energy values, and surplus hemodynamic energy retention values compared to those of the Capiox Baby RX05. These results indicate the Medtronic 0800 oxygenator significantly dampens the hemodynamic energy compared to the Capiox Baby RX05. Consequently, clinical use of the Medtronic 0800 in a pulsatile ECLS setting is likely to mitigate the benefits provided by pulsatile flow. In contrast, the Capiox Baby RX05 better transmits hemodynamic energy to the patient with much lower pressure drop.

AB - This study compared the quality of perfusion delivered by two oxygenators-the hollow-fiber membrane Capiox Baby RX05 and silicone membrane Medtronic 0800-using hemodynamic energy indicators. The oxygenators were tested across varying flow rates and perfusion modes in a neonatal extracorporeal life support (ECLS) model. The experimental ECLS circuit included a Jostra HL-20 heart/lung machine with Jostra Roller pump, oxygenators with associated tubing and components, and a neonatal pseudo-patient. We used a 40/60 glycerin/water solution in the circuit as a blood analog. Testing occurred at flow rates of 250, 500, and 750mL/min at 37°C under both pulsatile and nonpulsatile flow conditions. Hemodynamic data points consisted of recording 20-s intervals of data, and a total of 96 experimental repetitions were conducted. The pressure drop across the Capiox Baby RX05 oxygenator was significantly lower than the pressure drop across the Medtronic 0800 at all flow rates and perfusion modes. Furthermore, the Medtronic 0800 oxygenator showed significantly lower post-oxygenator energy equivalent pressures, total hemodynamic energy values, and surplus hemodynamic energy retention values compared to those of the Capiox Baby RX05. These results indicate the Medtronic 0800 oxygenator significantly dampens the hemodynamic energy compared to the Capiox Baby RX05. Consequently, clinical use of the Medtronic 0800 in a pulsatile ECLS setting is likely to mitigate the benefits provided by pulsatile flow. In contrast, the Capiox Baby RX05 better transmits hemodynamic energy to the patient with much lower pressure drop.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79958786408&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79958786408&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2011.01206.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2011.01206.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 21623841

AN - SCOPUS:79958786408

VL - 35

JO - Artificial Organs

JF - Artificial Organs

SN - 0160-564X

IS - 6

ER -