4.2 Article

Comparison of a new heparin-coated dense membrane lung with nonheparin-coated dense membrane lung for prolonged extracorporeal lung assist in goats

期刊

ARTIFICIAL ORGANS
卷 28, 期 11, 页码 993-1001

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2004.07312.x

关键词

extracorporeal lung assist; heparin-coating; minimal systemic heparinization; silicone layer; venoarterial bypass

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thrombosis and bleeding are major complications in cases of prolonged extracorporeal lung assist (ECLA) with an artificial-membrane lung. Antithrombogenic treatment of the artificial-membrane oxygenator and circuits is indispensable for safe ECLA. The efficacy of a new heparin-coated membrane lung with minimal systemic heparinization was evaluated for 7 days and compared with a nonheparin-coated membrane lung in goats. The animals were randomly assigned to either the heparin-coated membrane group (HM group, n = 5) or nonheparin-coated membrane group (NHM group, n = 5). Activated coagulation time (ACT) during ECLA was controlled to below 150 s in the HM group, and to near 200 s in the NHM group. All goats in the HM group were sustained on ECLA for 7 days, but two goats in the NHM group died on the 4th and 6th days, respectively. The mean systemic administration rate of heparin during ECLA was 22.4 +/- 4.4 U/kg/h in the HM group and 39.0 +/- 10.0 U/kg/h in the NHM group. There was a significant difference between the two groups (P < 0.05). The oxygen transfer rate, the Pco(2) difference, the perfusion resistance, and platelet counts showed no significant changes. There was no plasma leakage from the artificial lung. Although several clots were observed in the stagnant areas of the artificial lung, they did not lead to deterioration of the function of the artificial lung. The excellent antithrombogenicity, gas exchange ability, and durability of this new artificial lung with circuits might contribute to successful prolonged ECLA with minimal systemic heparinization.

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

4.2
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