Patient Blood Management in der Herzchirurgie

Safety and efficacy of digital chest drainage units compared to conventional chest drainage units in cardiac surgery

OBJECTIVES

The use of digital chest drainage units (CDUs) has become increasingly common in thoracic surgery due to several advantages. However, in cardiac surgery, its use is still limited in favour of conventional analogue CDUs. In order to investigate the potential benefit of digital CDUs in cardiac surgery, we compared the safety and efficacy of both systems in patients undergoing cardiac surgery at our centre.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 265 consecutive patients who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution between June 2017 and October 2017. These patients were divided into 2 groups: patients with analogue (A, n = 65) and digital CDUs (D, n = 200). Postoperative outcome was analysed and compared between both groups. In addition, the 'user experience' was evaluated by means of a questionnaire.

RESULTS

The median age of the cohort was 70 years (P = 0.167), 25.3% of patients were female (P = 0.414). There were no differences in terms of re-explorative surgery or use of blood products. Nor was there a difference in the overall amount of fluid collected. However, during the first 6 h, more fluid was collected by the digital CDUs. The overall rate of technical failure was 0.4%. We observed a significantly higher rate of clotting in the tubing system of the digital CDUs (P = 0.042). Concerning the user experience, the digital CDUs were associated with a more favourable ease of use on the regular wards (P < 0.001). With regard to the overall user experience, the digital CDUs outperformed the analogue systems (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital CDUs can be safely and effectively applied in patients after cardiac surgery. Due to the improved patient mobility and simplified chest tube management, the use of digital CDUs may be advantageous for patients after cardiac surgery. However, the issue of clotting of the tubing systems should be addressed by further technical improvements.

Minimally invasive versus conventional extracorporeal circulation circuits in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: a propensity-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation circuits provide several advantages compared to conventional extracorporeal circulation circuits. We compared the results of a minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation system with those of conventional extracorporeal circulation system, in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting.

METHODS

We identified 753 consecutive patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting at our centre between October 2014 and September 2016. These patients were divided into two groups: a minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation group (M, n = 229) and a conventional extracorporeal circulation group (C, n = 524). Baseline parameters, details of cardiac surgery as well as postoperative complications and outcomes were compared by means of a propensity-matched analysis of 180 matched pairs.

RESULTS

The median EuroSCORE II was 1.3%. Transfusion requirement of packed red blood cells (p = 0.002) was lower in Group M compared to conventional extracorporeal circulation systems. There were no differences in hospital mortality or in rates of adverse events between the matched groups. Total in-hospital mortality of the cohort was 1.7%.

CONCLUSION

The use of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation is associated with a significantly lower use of blood products after isolated coronary revascularisation. There were no differences concerning duration of surgery, complication rates and mortality between the groups. Therefore, the application of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation systems should be considered as preferred technique in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting procedures.