Abstract
Background Coronary artery bypass grafting is of the most major surgeries performed around the world. Even though advances are achieved in the surgical technique, a relatively high complication rate regarding circulation is still observed. These complications are believed to be related to cardiopulmonary bypass flow types, pulsatile and nonpulsatile. With renal complications being one of the most important ones, we aim to evaluate the effect of choice of these two flow types on patients’ renal function in a randomized controlled trial.
Method The study is a double blind randomized clinical trial. Patients with left ventricular dysfunction who were candidates for CABG and were between the ages of 40 to 75 were included in this study. The patients then were randomly assigned into two groups of intraoperative pulsatile and nonpulsatile flow type. The patients renal function markers such as 24-hour urine output, blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine levels and creatinine clearance were evaluated before and CABG and afterwards in the ICU ward. The results were then analyzed using SPSS 23 software.
Results of the initial 80 patients enrolled in this study, 16 patients were dropped due to unwillingness to continue follow-up and limitation of data gathering. Patients demographic data between two groups did not differ significantly. No statistically significant difference was observed between the 24 patients undergoing surgery with pulsatile flow and 40 with nonpulsatile flow regarding renal function. Both groups had a decrease in creatinine clearance during their ICU stay. Patients in the pulsatile flow group had less intubation time, less need for blood transfusion but more bleeding after the surgery.
Conclusion Our study indicated that there is no difference between the use of pulsatile versus nonpulsatile flow regarding patients’ renal outcome. Our participants had a relatively broader age range than similar studies, including younger patients. This plus having an acceptable number of patients evaluated may illustrate that the differences in these two flow types may be dependent on other risk factors depending on the studied population. Further investigations with focal groups could lead us towards a better understanding how these two flow types differ.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
IRCT20190218042749N1
Funding Statement
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by shiraz university of medical sciences ethics committee. IR.SUMS.REC.1397.108
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, M. Najafi. The data are not publicly available due to ethical committee's decision regarding privacy of patient data.
