학술논문
Assessment of three methods for removing massive air in a cardiopulmonary bypass circuit: simulation-based multi-discipline training in West China Hospital.
Document Type
Article
Author
Source
Subject
*CARDIOPULMONARY bypass
*CHI-squared test
*CLINICAL competence
*FISHER exact test
*HEALTH care teams
*HOSPITALS
*INTEGRATED health care delivery
*PATIENT safety
*RESEARCH funding
*STATISTICAL sampling
*T-test (Statistics)
*PERFUSIONISTS
*CRISIS intervention (Mental health services)
*GAS embolism
*NATIONAL competency-based educational tests
*DATA analysis software
*ADVERSE health care events
*DESCRIPTIVE statistics
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Language
ISSN
0267-6591
Abstract
Background and Objective: A multi-discipline cardiac and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) team simulation scenario was established to compare three different de-airing approaches dealing with massive air embolism in CPB, so as to formulate a standardized procedure to handle this adverse acute event more proficiently and ensure clinical safety. Method: A simulation-based clinical CPB massive air embolism scenario was developed by a cardiac and CPB team. Study Objects: Five licensed perfusionists and five CPB trainees were matched randomly into five pairs. Each pair would simulate the three different de-airing approaches separately as followed: (1) Conventional Method: arterial line filter (ALF) de-airing purge line and oxygenator self-recirculation bypass were used to de-air; (2) Arterial-Venous Loop (A-V Loop) Method: surgeons reconnected the arterial and venous lines to de-air by restoring the original priming A-V loop configuration; (3) Isolation of the ALF Method: this ensures de-bubbling of the CPB circuit, but bypasses the ALF function. Assessment Criteria: (1) Times to recovery (duration of the circulation suspension); (2) Subjective evaluation of skill and non-skill performances. Results: As to times to recovery, the Conventional Method group took 290.6 s ± 36.2, the A-V Loop Method group took 196.8 s ± 52.0 and the Isolation of ALF group took 99.4 s ± 15.1. The statistical difference is significant among the three groups (p<0.01). The subjective evaluation of training performance indicates that this simulation-based training is effective in assessing both skill and non-skill abilities. Conclusion: CPB simulation-based training was effective in comparing de-airing strategies and can instruct perfusion practices how to optimize techniques. For well-trained, multi-discipline cardiac teams, the A-V Loop Method is highly efficient and reliable in managing CPB massive air embolism. For cardiac teams that do not have this sophisticated training, the Isolation of ALF Method should be their alternative option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]