Pulsatile flow has been used during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for decades and its use is increasing with advancing extracorporeal technology. Pulsatile flow generates higher circuit pressures and shear forces than nonpulsatile flow at comparable pump flow and patient mean arterial pressure. Very little is known about the effect this has on erythrocytes. We included 62 adult patients (32 in the pulsatile group and 30 in the nonpulsatile group) undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting in this prospective observational study. Blood samples were collected at routine sampling times throughout surgery and were analyzed for the presence of free heme and globin using mass spectroscopy. Patient characteristics, CPB, and aortic cross-clamp times, pump flow as well as patient mean arterial pressure were similar in both groups. Maximum circuit pressure in the pulsatile flow group was statistically significantly higher than that in the nonpulsatile flow group (257.12 vs. 190.64 mmHg, p < 0.0001). Both heme and globin levels were higher in the pulsatile flow group. This reached statistical significance with globin at 30 minutes of CPB and with heme after aortic unclamping. We conclude that pulsatile CPB using roller pumps results in a greater extent of hemolysis. The clinical significance, however, is not yet known.

The use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in cardiac surgery has often been associated with postoperative organ dysfunction. Roller and centrifugal pumps produce non-pulsatile flow (NPF) by default, and this still is the most widely used mode of perfusion. The development of pulsatile pumps has allowed comparisons to be made with NPF. Pulsatile flow (PF) mimics the arterial pulse generated by the heart and is thought to be more physiological by some. This review aims to examine the proposed mechanisms behind the potential physiological benefits of PF during CPB and to summarize the current clinical evidence. MEDLINE and EMBASE were used to identify articles published over a 25 year period from 1995 to 2020. A literature review was conducted to determine the effects of PF on organ functions. A total of 44 articles were considered. Most of the articles published on PF were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, there was a wide variation in study methodology, method of pulse generation and how pulsatility was measured. Most of the evidence in favor of PF showed a marginal improvement on renal and pulmonary outcomes. In these studies, pulsatility was generated by an intra-aortic balloon pump. In conclusion, there is a lack of good quality RCTs that can inform on the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of PF. Further research is required in order to draw a conclusion with regards to the benefits of PF on organ function.