4.7 Article

Low-flow assessment of current ECMO/ECCO2R rotary blood pumps and the potential effect on hemocompatibility

期刊

CRITICAL CARE
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-019-2622-3

关键词

ARDS; ECMO; ECCO2R; ECLS; Centrifugal blood pumps

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [13GW0219B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) uses an extracorporeal circuit to directly remove carbon dioxide from the blood either in lieu of mechanical ventilation or in combination with it. While the potential benefits of the technology are leading to increasing use, there are very real risks associated with it. Several studies demonstrated major bleeding and clotting complications, often associated with hemolysis and poorer outcomes in patients receiving ECCO2R. A better understanding of the risks originating specifically from the rotary blood pump component of the circuit is urgently needed. Methods High-resolution computational fluid dynamics was used to calculate the hemodynamics and hemocompatibility of three current rotary blood pumps for various pump flow rates. Results The hydraulic efficiency dramatically decreases to 5-10% if operating at blood flow rates below 1 L/min, the pump internal flow recirculation rate increases 6-12-fold in these flow ranges, and adverse effects are increased due to multiple exposures to high shear stress. The deleterious consequences include a steep increase in hemolysis and destruction of platelets. Conclusions The role of blood pumps in contributing to adverse effects at the lower blood flow rates used during ECCO2R is shown here to be significant. Current rotary blood pumps should be used with caution if operated at blood flow rates below 2 L/min, because of significant and high recirculation, shear stress, and hemolysis. There is a clear and urgent need to design dedicated blood pumps which are optimized for blood flow rates in the range of 0.5-1.5 L/min.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据