Efficacy of Pulsatile Flow Perfusion in Adult Cardiac Surgery: Hemodynamic Energy and Vascular Reactivity

Background: The role of pulsatile (PP) versus non-pulsatile (NP) flow during a cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is still debated. This study's aim was to analyze hemodynamic effects, endothelial reactivity and erythrocytes response during a CPB with PP or NP. Methods: Fifty-two patients undergoing an aortic valve replacement were prospectively randomized for surgery with either PP or NP flow. Pulsatility was evaluated in terms of energy equivalent pressure (EEP) and surplus hemodynamic energy (SHE). Systemic (SVRi) and pulmonary (PVRi) vascular resistances, endothelial markers levels and erythrocyte nitric-oxide synthase (eNOS) activity were collected at different perioperative time-points. Results: In the PP group, the resultant EEP was 7.3% higher than the mean arterial pressure (MAP), which corresponded to 5150 +/- 2291 ergs/cm(3) of SHE. In the NP group, the EEP and MAP were equal; no SHE was produced. The PP group showed lower SVRi during clamp-time (p = 0.06) and lower PVRi after protamine administration and during first postoperative hours (p = 0.02). Lower SVRi required a higher dosage of norepinephrine in the PP group (p = 0.02). Erythrocyte eNOS activity results were higher in the PP patients (p = 0.04). Renal function was better preserved in the PP group (p = 0.001), whereas other perioperative variables were comparable between the groups. Conclusions: A PP flow during a CPB results in significantly lower SVRi, PVRi and increased eNOS production. The clinical impact of increased perioperative vasopressor requirements in the PP group deserves further evaluation.

Automated summary

Using pulsatile flow during cardiopulmonary bypass results in significantly lower systemic and pulmonary vascular resistances, increased eNOS production, and better preservation of renal function. The clinical impact of increased vasopressor requirements in the pulsatile flow group warrants further evaluation.