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

This Article 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 Marco, J. D. Articles by Barner, H. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Marco, J. D. Articles by Barner, H. B.

The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol 73, 287-292, Copyright © 1977 by The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and The Western Thoracic Surgical Association

ARTICLES

Aortic venting. Comparison of vent effectiveness

JD Marco and HB Barner

Three commercially available aortic vents have been evaluated as to effectiveness in removing small volumes of air introduced into a mock circulatory circuit. Without aspiration, Vent 2 was the most effective and removed 58 per cent of 0.1 ml., 90 per cent of 0.5 ml., and 74 per cent of 1.0 ml. boluses at a cardiac output of 2 L. At a cardiac output of 4 L., Vent 2 removed 42, 76, and 49 per cent, respectively. With aspiration (Vent 2 not designed for aspiration) and a 2 L. cardiac output, Vents 1 and 3 removed 84 to 98 per cent of 0.1 ml., 68 to 92 per cent of 0.5 ml., and 74 to 86 per cent of 1.0 ml. boluses. With aspiration and a 4 L. cardiac output, Vent 3 was significantly more effective than Vent 1 and removed 92 to 94 per cent of 0.1 ml., 82 to 86 per cent of 0.5 ml., and 77 to 80 per cent of 1.0 ml. boluses. One liter of canine blood was aspirated through Vents 1 and 3 and a flow rate of 250 ml. per minute. For Vent 1, serum hemoglobin levels increased from 40 to 249 mg. per 100 ml. and for Vent 3 from 49 to 212 mg. per 100 ml. There are significant differences in the ability of commercially available aortic vents to remove small air bubbles trapped in the heart after initial direct cardiac venting. Vents having the capability of aspiration are more effective and result in acceptable hemolysis.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				M. Kurusz, B. D Butler, J. Katz, and V. R Conti Air embolism during cardiopulmonary bypass Perfusion, November 1, 1995; 10(6): 361 - 391. [PDF]

				B. Butler and M. Kurusz Review article : Gaseous microemboli: a review Perfusion, April 1, 1990; 5(2): 81 - 99. [PDF]

				P. Fundaro, A. R Velardi, J. H Cilley, R. Vertrees, A. J Del Rossi, P. Di Biasi, and C. Santoli A new multipurpose aortic root cannula for open-heart surgery Perfusion, July 1, 1989; 4(3): 183 - 186. [Abstract] [PDF]