HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Boldt, J. Articles by Hempelmann, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Boldt, J. Articles by Hempelmann, G.

Ann Thorac Surg 1991;51:747-753
© 1991 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Articles

Six different hemofiltration devices for blood conservation in cardiac surgery

Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, and Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Federal Republic of Germany

Accepted for publication December 24, 1990.

^_* Address reprint requests to Dr Boldt, Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikstr. 29, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, D-6300 Giessen, FRG.

Hemofiltration devices and the Cell Saver are the most often used techniques to reduce homologous blood requirements in cardiac surgery. In a controlled, randomized study, 105 patients underwent elective aortocoronary bypass grafting. Six different hemofilters (HF-80, HFT 14, CPB 7000, Cobe 1200, UF-205, BC-140) were tested and compared with the Cell Saver (Cell Saver 4) for blood concentration during and after cardiopulmonary bypass. Efficacy, practicality, and laboratory indices including coagulation variables were documented through the morning of the first postoperative day. The HF-80 and UF-205 were the most effective devices for blood concentration. At the end of the operation, the number of platelets was least reduced in these two groups (HF-80, –7%; UF-205, –6%). Moreover, both devices had a significantly higher filtration rate than the other hemofilters. Use of the Cell Saver resulted in the lowest values in coagulation variables (AT-III, fibrinogen, number of platelets) and the most pronounced deterioration in protein homeostasis (colloid osmotic pressure, albumin). In this group, the AT-III concentration was reduced until the morning of the first postoperative day. No negative effects were seen in regard to hemofiltration (free hemoglobin and polymorphonuclear elastase; the Cell Saver group had similar values for these variables). We conclude that blood salvage with hemofiltration devices is superior to that with the Cell Saver. There were, however, significant differences among the hemofilters. The HF-80 and UF-205 were the most effective devices in this study.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Boodhwani, A. Hamilton, B. de Varennes, T. Mesana, K. Williams, G. A. Wells, H. Nathan, J. Y. Dupuis, A. Babaev, P. Wells, et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility of testing modified ultrafiltration as a blood conservation technology in cardiac surgery J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., March 1, 2010; 139(3): 701 - 706. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Hammon Extracorporeal Circulation: Perfusion System Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 350 - 370. [Full Text]

				E. A. Hessel II and L. H. Edmunds Jr. Extracorporeal Circulation: Perfusion Systems Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2003; 2(2003): 317 - 338. [Full Text]