ATS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Giannelli, S.
Right arrow Articles by Moreno, A. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Giannelli, S., Jr
Right arrow Articles by Moreno, A. H.

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, Vol 22, 347-355, Copyright © 1976 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons


ARTICLES

Constant-pressure coronary artery perfusion during aortic valve operations

S Giannelli Jr, EF Conklin, RT Potter, EA Bonfils-Roberts, JT Mazzara and AH Moreno

We considered the theoretical differences between the normal relationships of coronary blood flow and perfusion pressure in the working heart and those obtained with continuous, steady-flow perfusion by a roller pump during aortic valve replacement. Steady pump perfusion should deliver less blood flow to the endocardium because: 1. For the same mean artery perfusion pressure, the average coronary blood flow is less with constant-flow pump perfusion. 2. With constant pump perfusion, pressure would be excessively high during systole, and during diastole it would be significantly lower than the mean perfusion pressure. Instantaneous pressure and flow were measured in the left coronary artery in 8 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, employing either roller pump perfusion or a gravity flow system to provide a steady pressure source. Although we did not attempt to demonstrate improved endocardial flow, the mean left coronary flow was always greater with gravity perfusion (297 versus 153 ml/min), lending support to the theoretically proposed differences between the two perfusion methods.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS
Copyright © 1976 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.