Humoral immune response and coated or uncoated oxygenators during cardiopulmonary bypass surgery

Abstract

SummaryAim:To investigate and compare uncoated and phosphorylcholine-coated oxygenators in terms of induction of humoral immune response during coronary artery bypass surgery.Methods:A total of 20 consecutive patients who underwent coronary artery bypass surgery were randomly distributed into two groups according to the type of oxygenator used during surgery. Group 1 consisted of 10 patients who were operated on using phosphorylcholine-coated oxygenators. Group 2 contained 10 patients who underwent surgery using uncoated oxygenators. Blood and oxygenator fibre samples were obtained and compared in terms of immunoglobulins (IgG, IgM), complements (C3c, C4), serum total protein and albumin levels using electron microscopy and flow cytometry.Results:In group 1, levels of IgM, IgG, total protein and serum albumin were significantly increased at the end of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) compared to those at the beginning of CPB. In group 2, C3c and C4 levels at the beginning of CPB were found to be significantly higher than at the end. Electron microscopic examination of oxygenator fibres demonstrated that phosphorylcholine-coated fibres were less likely to be adsorbed by serum proteins and complements than the uncoated fibres.Conclusion:Our results indicate that phosphorylcholine-coated oxygenators seemed to induce humoral immune response to a lesser extent than uncoated oxygenators during coronary artery bypass procedures.

The epidemiology of errors in data capture, management, and analysis: A scoping review of retracted articles and retraction notices in clinical and translational research

“…This form of cross-sectional comparison at individual time points is not appropriate as it fails to account for patient variability." [92] "the statistical analysis to handle risk factors with more than two categories is incorrect" [93] "The reason for this decision is that the statistical methodology we used did not adequately limit the impact of outlier data points on our findings. This was evident after reanalysis of the data using a different method.…”