Comparison of cardiopulmonary bypass complications with roller and centrifugal blood pumps: a systematic review


Abstract

Background. Cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP) is a form of extracorporeal circulation used in many surgical procedures; however, there is no definitive information regarding which pump head type (roller or centrifugal) results in the best patient outcomes. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify peer-reviewed literature in which pump types are compared on several outcomes, including inflammation, blood damage, cognitive decline, and other postoperative complications.

Methods. A systematic review of the literature was performed following PRISMA guidelines and reported with PROSPERO ( registration number: CRD42021257382). The review followed a three-step process to identify articles for inclusion in the study, including identifying potential records, screening records for eligibility, and evaluating included records for quality and data analysis. The authors outlined specific inclusion criteria based on study characteristics, patient population, surgical intervention, context, and primary outcomes. All studies identified as case reports, editorials, or reviews were excluded from consideration, as well as any studies that included children or adults with congenital heart defects. Covidence was utilized for quality assessment of the final articles, following their assessment template based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1, and also for data extraction, which included information on the study patient population, CPB pumps and circuits, and reported surgical and patient outcomes.

Results. The search yielded 803 total articles across PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Compendex databases. After removing duplicates and articles published prior to 2011, 361 articles remained and were uploaded to Covidence for initial title and abstract screening. Of the 19 articles selected for full review, four were later excluded for not meeting patient population criteria and having the wrong comparator information (n=15 final articles included in this analysis). Reported outcome results varied widely among the studies and were grouped into 11 sub-categories. It was found that centrifugal pumps may elicit a smaller inflammatory response, induce less hemolysis, involve less blood loss, and lower transfusion volumes of blood cells, fewer renal complications, shorter ICU times, and lower mortality rates compared to roller pumps. Results regarding differences in ischemia, microemboli generation, and post-operative cognitive decline between the two pump groups remained inconclusive.

Discussion and Conclusions. Current literature demonstrates the need to better understand postoperative complications of CPB that impact patient lives through the postsurgical continuum. While centrifugal pumps tend to cause less negative patient outcomes compared to roller pumps, further consideration is still needed to account for other CPB circuit confounding factors.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].