Abstract：
BACKGROUND: During cardiac surgery the use of a minimal extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) system may reduce the adverse effects for the patient. This is probably caused by reduced inflammation and hemodilution. For the use of a MiECC circuit, a venous bubble trap (VBT) is warranted for safety reasons. The aim of this study was to assess if an arterial filter with a small prime volume has the same (or better) air removal capacities as a VBT in a MiECC circuit and subsequentially may be used as an alternative.
METHODS: In an in vitro study, air removal properties were compared between the arterial filter and three VBT\'s on the market, VBT160 (Getinge), VBT 8 (LivaNova and VARD (Medtronic). In a MiECC circuit, the filter devices were placed in a venous position and challenged with massive and micro air. Gaseous microemboli (GME) were measured with a bubble counter proximal and distal of the VBT device.
RESULTS: More than 99.9 % of the air was removed after a bolus air challenge by all VBT\'s. Both the VARD and the AF100 showed better GME removal properties (not significant for the AF100) compared to the other devices. All filters showed GME generation after a challenge with massive air. Compared to the other filters, only the VARD showed no passing of larger bubbles when a volume of 50 mL of air was present in the filter.
CONCLUSIONS: The AF100 seems to be a safe and low prime alternative for use in a MiECC system as a venous air trap. A word of caution, placement of the AF100 arterial filter in the venous line is off label use.
METHODS: In an in vitro study, air removal properties were compared between the arterial filter and three VBT\'s on the market, VBT160 (Getinge), VBT 8 (LivaNova and VARD (Medtronic). In a MiECC circuit, the filter devices were placed in a venous position and challenged with massive and micro air. Gaseous microemboli (GME) were measured with a bubble counter proximal and distal of the VBT device.
RESULTS: More than 99.9 % of the air was removed after a bolus air challenge by all VBT\'s. Both the VARD and the AF100 showed better GME removal properties (not significant for the AF100) compared to the other devices. All filters showed GME generation after a challenge with massive air. Compared to the other filters, only the VARD showed no passing of larger bubbles when a volume of 50 mL of air was present in the filter.
CONCLUSIONS: The AF100 seems to be a safe and low prime alternative for use in a MiECC system as a venous air trap. A word of caution, placement of the AF100 arterial filter in the venous line is off label use.
摘要：
背景：在心脏手术期间，使用最小体外循环（MiECC）系统可以减少对患者的不利影响。这可能是由炎症和血液稀释减少引起的。对于MiECC电路的使用，出于安全原因，静脉气泡捕获器（VBT）是必要的。这项研究的目的是评估在MiECC电路中，充注量小的动脉过滤器是否具有与VBT相同（或更好）的空气去除能力，随后可以用作替代方案。
方法：在一项体外研究中，比较了动脉过滤器和市场上三种VBT的空气去除性能，VBT160(Getinge),VBT8（LivaNova和VARD（美敦力公司）。在MiECC电路中，将过滤装置置于静脉位置，并受到大量和微量空气的挑战。用VBT装置近端和远端的气泡计数器测量气态微栓子(GME)。
结果：所有VBT进行推注空气攻击后，超过99.9％的空气被清除。与其他装置相比,VARD和AF100均显示出更好的GME去除性能(对于AF100不显著)。经过大量空气的挑战，所有过滤器都显示出GME一代。与其他过滤器相比，当过滤器中存在50mL体积的空气时,只有VARD显示没有较大的气泡通过。
结论：AF100似乎是在MiECC系统中用作静脉空气阱的安全且低的主要替代品。提醒一下,AF100动脉过滤器在静脉管路中的放置是标签外使用。
方法：在一项体外研究中，比较了动脉过滤器和市场上三种VBT的空气去除性能，VBT160(Getinge),VBT8（LivaNova和VARD（美敦力公司）。在MiECC电路中，将过滤装置置于静脉位置，并受到大量和微量空气的挑战。用VBT装置近端和远端的气泡计数器测量气态微栓子(GME)。
结果：所有VBT进行推注空气攻击后，超过99.9％的空气被清除。与其他装置相比,VARD和AF100均显示出更好的GME去除性能(对于AF100不显著)。经过大量空气的挑战，所有过滤器都显示出GME一代。与其他过滤器相比，当过滤器中存在50mL体积的空气时,只有VARD显示没有较大的气泡通过。
结论：AF100似乎是在MiECC系统中用作静脉空气阱的安全且低的主要替代品。提醒一下,AF100动脉过滤器在静脉管路中的放置是标签外使用。
