ArticleArtificial organs2025
Evaluation of extra-corporeal membrane oxygenator cannulae in pulsatile and non-pulsatile pediatric mock circuits.
Article in Artificial organs, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of extra-corporeal membrane oxygenator cannulae in pulsatile and non-pulsatile pediatric mock circuits.Artificial organs · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the hemodynamic performance of arterial and venous cannulae in a compliant pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) mock circuit in pulsatile and non-pulsatile flow conditions.
methodsThe ECMO setup consisted of an oxygenator, diagonal pump, and standardized-length arterial/venous tubing with pressure transducers. A validated left-heart mock loop was adapted to simulate pediatric conditions. The pulsatile flow was driven by a computer-controlled piston pump set at 120 bpm. A roller pump was used for non-pulsatile conditions. The circuit was primed with 40% glycerol-based solution. The cardiac output was set to 1 L/min and the aortic pressure to 40-50 mmHg. Four arterial cannulae (8Fr, 10Fr, 12Fr, 14Fr) and five venous cannulae (12Fr, 14Fr, 16Fr, 18Fr, 20Fr) (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) were tested at increasing flow rate in 12 combinations.
resultsThe pulsatile condition required lower ECMO pump speeds for all cannulae combinations at a given flow rate, inducing a significantly smaller increase of flow in the mock loop. Under non-pulsatile conditions, the aortic and arterial pressures in the cannulae were higher (p < 0.01) while no significant differences in pressure drop and pressure-flow characteristics (M-number) were observed. The total hemodynamic energy was higher in case of non-pulsatile flow (p < 0.01).
conclusionUnder non-pulsatile conditions, the system was characterized by overall higher pressures, resulting in higher support to the patient. The consequent increase of potential energy compensates for increases of kinetic energy, leading to a higher total hemodynamic energy. Pressure gradients and M number are independent of the testing conditions. Pulsatile testing conditions led to more physiological testing conditions, and it is recommended for ECMO testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.