Venous Cannula (venous + cannula)

Distribution by Scientific Domains


Selected Abstracts


Laboratory Performance Testing of Venous Cannulae During Inlet Obstruction

ARTIFICIAL ORGANS, Issue 7 2008
Antoine P. Simons
Abstract:, Venous cannulae undergo continuous improvements to achieve better and safer venous drainage. Several cannula tests have been reported, though cannula performance during inlet obstruction has never been a test criterion. In this study, five different cannulae for proximal venous drainage were tested in a mock circulation that enabled measurement of hydraulic conductance after inlet obstruction by vessel collapse. Values for hydraulic conductance ranged from 1.11 × 10,2 L/min/mm Hg for a Thin-Flex Single Stage Venous Cannula with an open-end lighthouse tip to 1.55 × 10,2 L/min/mm Hg for a DLP VAD Venous Cannula featuring a swirled tip profile, showing a difference that amounts to nearly 40% of the lowest conductance value. Excessive venous drainage results in potentially dangerous high-negative venous line pressures independent of cannula design. Cannulatip design featuring swirled and grooved tip structures increases drainage capacity and enhances cannula performance during inlet obstruction. [source]


Right Axillary Vein Cannulation for Percutaneous Cardiopulmonary Support

ARTIFICIAL ORGANS, Issue 2 2007
Masato Tochii
Abstract:, A 34-year-old male with a past history of permanent inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement was referred to us for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Percutaneous cardiopulmonary support (PCPS) was required for the lung hemorrhage and reperfusion injury, although the thromboendarterectomy was successfully completed. The arterial cannula was inserted into the femoral artery, and the venous cannula was inserted into the right axillary vein. The patient was weaned from PCPS 1 day after the operation and was discharged 35 days after the operation. Axillary vein cannulation is thought to be a feasible method when PCPS is required for a patient with previous IVC filter placement. [source]


Population pharmacokinetics of oral diclofenac for acute pain in children

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, Issue 6 2008
Joseph F. Standing
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT , Diclofenac is an effective oral analgesic for acute postoperative pain. In adults 25 mg is half as effective as 50 mg, but 50 mg and 100 mg are similarly effective (ceiling effect). Diclofenac has linear pharmacokinetics in this range. , Diclofenac is frequently used ,off-label' in children for acute pain but optimum dosing is unclear (dosing of diclofenac in clinical paediatric studies ranges from 0.5,2.5 mg kg,1). There is currently no licensed oral paediatric formulation of diclofenac. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS , Using a new diclofenac oral suspension, a dose of 1 mg kg,1 in children aged 1 to 12 years gives a similar exposure to 50 mg in adults; paediatric patients are unlikely to benefit from higher doses. AIMS To develop a population pharmacokinetic model for a new diclofenac suspension (50 mg 5 ml,1) in adult volunteers and paediatric patients, and recommend a dose for acute pain in children. METHODS Blood samples were drawn at the start and end of surgery, and on removal of the venous cannula from 70 children (aged 1 to 12 years, weight 9 to 37 kg) who received a preoperative oral 1 mg kg,1 dose; these were pooled with rich (14 post-dose samples) data from 30 adult volunteers. Population pharmacokinetic modelling was undertaken with NONMEM. The optimum adult dose of diclofenac for acute pain is 50 mg. Simulation from the final model was performed to predict a paediatric dose to achieve a similar AUC to 50 mg in adults. RESULTS A total of 558 serum diclofenac concentrations from 100 subjects was used in the pooled analysis. A single disposition compartment model with first order elimination and dual absorption compartments was used. The estimates of CL/F and VD/F were 53.98 l h,1 70 kg,1 and 4.84 l 70 kg,1 respectively. Allometric size models appeared to predict adequately changes in CL and VD with age. Of the simulated doses investigated, 1 mg kg,1 gave paediatric AUC(0,12 h) to adult 50 mg AUC(0,12 h) ratios of 1.00, 1.08 and 1.18 for ages 1,3, 4,6 and 7,12 years respectively. CONCLUSIONS This study has shown 1 mg kg,1 diclofenac to produce similar exposure in children aged 1 to 12 years as 50 mg in adults, and is acceptable for clinical practice; patients are unlikely to obtain further benefit from higher doses. [source]


Peripheral blood stem cell collection in pediatric patients: Feasibility of leukapheresis under anesthesia in uncompliant small children with solid tumors ,

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL APHERESIS, Issue 2 2006
Fernando Ravagnani
Leukapheresis demands patient's compliance and adequate vascular accesses, which can require invasive methods in very small children whose treatment protocol includes hemopoietic stem cell collection for myeloablative chemotherapy and stem cell rescue. Since 1998, at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan, in selected uncompliant small children, the placement of peripheral vascular accesses and leukapheresis have been performed at the same time under general anesthesia. Peripheral venous cannulas were positioned for blood collection, while blood was returned through either peripheral cannulas or mono-lumen central catheters previously installed for chemotherapy. A continuous-flow cell separator was used for leukapheresis. Between 1998 and 2003, 47 children with solid tumors underwent anesthesia for a total of 54 leukaphereses. The patients' age ranged from 12.7 to 93 months (median 30.3) and their weight ranged from 7 to 20 kg (median 14.1). Neither metabolic nor anesthesiological complications were recorded. In 89% of cases, the CD 34+ cell target was achieved at a single harvest; the median number of CD 34+ cells was 10.8 × 106/kg/leukapheresis (range 1,117) and the median collection efficiency was 63.4% (range 25,100.6). Leukapheresis under anesthesia is feasible and safe in very low-weight children whose compliance is lacking due to age and disease. J. Clin. Apheresis, 2005 © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source]