Hemolysis and cardiopulmonary bypass: meta-analysis and systematic review of contributing factors

Bhirowo, Yudo P. and Raksawardana, Yusuf K. and Setianto, Budi Y. and Sudadi, Sudadi and Tandean, Tommy N. and Zaharo, Alfia F. and Ramsi, Irhash F. and Kusumawardani, Hening T. and Triyono, Teguh (2023) Hemolysis and cardiopulmonary bypass: meta-analysis and systematic review of contributing factors. Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 18 (1). ISSN 17498090

[thumbnail of Hemolysis and cardiopulmonary bypass meta-analysis and systematic review of contributing factors.pdf] Text
Hemolysis and cardiopulmonary bypass meta-analysis and systematic review of contributing factors.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to Registered users only

Download (3MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

Background: The use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is almost inevitable in cardiac surgery. However, it can cause complications, including hemolysis. Until now, there have not been any standards for reducing hemolysis from CPB. Therefore, this systematic review was conducted to determine the factors that increase or reduce hemolysis in the use of CPB. Methods: Keywords Earches (cardiac surgery AND cardiopulmonary bypass AND hemolysis) were done on PubMed databases and Cochrane CENTRAL from 1990—2021 for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied interventions on CPB, in cardiac surgery patients, and measured hemolysis as one of the outcomes. Studies involving patients with preoperative hematological disorders, prosthetic valves, preoperative use of intra-aortic balloon pumps and extracorporeal circulation, emergency and minimally invasive surgery are excluded Results: The search yielded 64 studies that met the inclusion criteria, which involved a total of 3,434 patients. The most common surgery was coronary revascularization (75). Out of 64 studies, 33 divided into 7 analyses. Remaining 31 studies were synthesized qualitatively. Significant decreases were found in centrifugal vs roller pumps for PFHb (p = 0.0006) and Hp (p < 0.0001) outcomes, separated vs combined suctioned blood (p = 0.003), CPB alternatives vs conventional CPB (p < 0.0001), and mini extracorporeal circulation (MiniECC) vs conventional CPB for LDH (p = 0.0008). Significant increases were found in pulsatility (p = 0.03) and vacuum-assisted venous drainage (VAVD) vs gravity-assisted venous drainage (GAVD) (p = 0.002). Conclusion: The review shows that hemolysis could be caused by several factors and efforts have been made to reduce it, combining significant efforts could be beneficial. However, this review has limitations, such as heterogeneity due to no standards available for conducting CPB. Therefore, further research with standardized guidelines for CPB is needed to yield more comparable studies. Meta-analyses with more specific parameters should be done to minimize heterogeneity. © 2023, BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: Cited by: 2; All Open Access, Gold Open Access
Uncontrolled Keywords: Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Cardiopulmonary Bypass; Extracorporeal Circulation; Hemolysis; Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; cardiopulmonary bypass; extracorporeal circulation; heart surgery; hemolysis; human; meta analysis; minimally invasive surgery
Subjects: R Medicine > RC Internal medicine
Divisions: Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing > Public Health
Depositing User: Ani PURWANDARI
Date Deposited: 04 Jun 2024 08:23
Last Modified: 04 Jun 2024 08:23
URI: https://ir.lib.ugm.ac.id/id/eprint/1108

Actions (login required)

View Item
View Item