published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User
published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User
To remove gaseous microemboli (GME) using an oxygenator with an integrated arterial filter, it is recommended by some manufacturers to purge the oxygenator as an additional safety feature while on bypass. In this in vitro study, we evaluated whether purging of oxygenators with an integrated arterial filter is efficient in reducing GME. Five different types of commercially available contemporary oxygenators with an integrated arterial filter based on progressive filter filtration (1), cascade filtration (1), screen filtration (2), or self-venting (1) were tested for their efficiency in removing GME while keeping the purge line open or closed. A bubble counter was used for pre- and post-oxygenator GME signaling, from which the filter efficiency was computed. Freshly drawn heparinized porcine blood was used at blood flow rates of 3 and 5 L/min. Three units of each oxygenator were tested with its specific reservoir at a fixed volume level of 1,500 mL. GME load was introduced into the venous line at 1,000 mL air/min. Measurements started as soon as GME were detected by the pre-oxygenator probe and then continued for 1 minute. There was no statistically significant difference in filter efficiency between the purged and non-purged groups for specific oxygenators. At a blood flow of 3 L/min, the average filter efficiency stayed approximately invariable when comparing the non-purged and purged groups, where 89.1–88.2% indicated the largest difference between the groups. At a blood flow rate of 5 L/min, the filter efficiency changed in one screen filter group from an average of 55.7% in the non-purged group to 42.4% in the purged group. Other filter efficiencies at the blood flow rate of 5 L/min for non-purged compared with purged groups were, respectively, 98.0 vs. 98.0% (screen filtration), 88.6 vs. 85.8% (self-venting filtration), 82.8 vs. 75.5% (progressive filter filtration), and 65.4 vs. 65.1% (cascade filtration). Based on these results, purging while confronted with continuous GME challenge did not result in an increased filter efficiency.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.