Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 8, 2026
A Recovery Cardiopulmonary Bypass Model Without Transfusion or Inotropic Agents in Rats
Published on: March 23, 2018
Effects of pulsatile perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass on biochemical markers and kidney function in patients
Alireza Mohammadzadeh1, Naser Jafari, Mohammad Hasanpour
1Department of Cardiothoracic, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Ardabil University of Medical Sciences Ardabil 56197, Iran.
Insights
Pulsatile perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) showed better cardiac and kidney function outcomes compared to non-pulsatile methods in heart surgery patients. This study compared biochemical markers and kidney function tests between the two perfusion types.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Surgery
- Cardiopulmonary Bypass Technology
- Biochemical Marker Analysis
Background:
- Lack of conclusive guidelines on pulsatile vs. non-pulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) effectiveness in cardiac surgery.
- Need to evaluate the impact of perfusion modes on myocardial and renal function.
- Cardiac biochemical markers (CPK, CK-MB, LDH) and kidney function tests (BUN, Cr) are key indicators.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the effects of pulsatile versus continuous (non-pulsatile) perfusion during CPB on cardiac and kidney function.
- To analyze the release of cardiac biochemical markers and kidney function indicators in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with different perfusion methods.
- To provide evidence-based insights for optimizing CPB strategies.
Main Methods:
- Prospective study involving 80 cardiac surgery patients, divided into pulsatile (n=40) and non-pulsatile (n=40) CPB groups.
- Venous blood samples collected pre-operatively and at 24, 48, and 72 hours post-operatively.
- Analysis of creatine phosphokinase (CPK), CK-MB, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and creatinine (Cr) levels.
Main Results:
- No significant differences in preoperative patient demographics (sex, age, body surface area) between the groups.
- Pulsatile perfusion demonstrated a superior effect on cardiac and kidney function compared to non-pulsatile perfusion.
- Observed trends in cardiac marker release and kidney function tests favored the pulsatile group.
Conclusions:
- Pulsatile perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass appears to be more beneficial for preserving cardiac and kidney function post-cardiac surgery.
- The findings suggest a potential advantage of pulsatile perfusion over non-pulsatile methods in mitigating myocardial damage and renal impairment.
- Further research and guideline development are warranted to confirm these findings and optimize CPB perfusion strategies.
Abstract:
For several years there is no conclusive guideline on the effectiveness of pulsatile or non-pulsatile perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in patients undergoing cardiac surgeries. In this study, we evaluated the effect of pulsatile versus continuous perfusion on the myocardial release of the cardiac biochemical markers including, creatine phosphokinase (CPK), cardiac creatine kinase (CK-MB), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and also kidney function tests including: blood urea nitrogen test (BUN) and creatinine test (Cr) in patients that underwent both pulsatile and non-pulsatile methods before and after heart surgeries. A total of 80 patients were enrolled in this study, 40 patients in each pulsatile and non-pulsatile group. Venous blood samples were drown from each patient in two groups before operation and after operation at, 24, 48, and 72 h and analyzed separately for CPK, its cardiac isoenzyme (CK-MB), LDH, BUN and Cr. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to preoperative parameters such as sex, age, and body surface area. Our study shows that the effect of pulsatile perfusion on cardiac and kidney function is better than the non-pulsatile method.
