Aortic venting. Comparison of vent effectiveness.
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.
D001011:Aorta; D001775:Blood Circulation; D002302:Cardiac Output; D006348:Cardiac Surgical Procedures; D002315:Cardiopulmonary Bypass / Q000295:instrumentation; D004618:Embolism, Air / Q000517:prevention & control*; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D006801:Humans; D008954:Models, Biological; D013396:Suction / Q000379:methods*