ABSTRACT
Objective: We aimed to evaluate the effects of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) machines used in coronary artery bypass grafting surgeries on cerebral perfusion by performing cerebral oximetry monitoring [near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS)], S100-ß protein measurements, and neurocognitive function assessment tests using both pulsatile and non-pulsatile modes. Methods: A total of 44 patients, 22 non-pulsatile (Group NP) and 22 pulsatile (Group P), were included in the study. Hemodynamic parameters, arterial blood gas values, NIRS values and blood S100ß protein levels were analyzed at five points: pre-induction (T1), initiation of CPB (T2), termination of CPB (T3), end of surgery (T4), and postoperative 24 h (T5). Two different neuropsychological tests were administered to patients in the preoperative and postoperative periods. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups for demographic characteristics such as age, gender, body mass index, aortic cross-clamping, CPB, and operation durations. The mean arterial blood pressure and PaO2 values for the T2 measurements were significantly higher in group NP (P < 0.05). Regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO2) (NIRS) values at T3 and T4 were significantly higher in group P (P < 0.05). Serum S100ß measurement values at T3 and T5 were significantly higher in group NP than in group P (P < 0.05). Serum S100ß protein levels at T3 correlate with rSO2 results. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of pH, lactate, glucose, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, and peripheral oxygen saturation values. Conclusion: Despite no difference between the two groups for neurocognitive function tests, we believe that pulsatile perfusion may be more beneficial for cerebral perfusion when S100ß protein and NIRS values are considered. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the benefits of the pulsatile technique for cerebral perfusion.
ABSTRACT
Background and Aims: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health care workers are at a high risk of infection from aerosols. In this study, we compared the ease of using the aerosol box (AB) with the traditional method during internal jugular vein cannulation attempts (IJVCA). Methods: The study included 40 patients with COVID-19 who required central venous catheterisation during treatment in the ward. The patients were randomly allocated to one of the two protective equipment (PPE) groups and then randomly assigned to one of the five anaesthesiologists with at least 5 years of experience. Group P and A had both PPE and AB used, whereas Group P included patients where PPE was used alone. The physicians completed a survey after performing the procedure to evaluate the use of the AB. Results: The preparation for the procedure and procedure durations were observed to be statistically longer in Group P and A (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively). The first attempt in Group P and A was unsuccessful in six patients, whereas the first attempt in Group P was unsuccessful in only two patients (P = 0.235). Anaesthesiologists described difficulty with manipulation during the procedure, discomfort using the box, and resulting cognitive load increase in Group P and A. Conclusion: The IJVCA procedures were faster and easier and had greater satisfaction for physicians when the AB was not used. Also, the high complication rate, including carotid artery punctures and disruption of sterility and PPE, albeit not statistically significant, has clinical implications. Therefore, we do not recommend the use of ABs for IJVCA.
