{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.051371571072319204, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04039900249376559, 'mean_word_length': 4.104325699745547, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effect of blood viscosity on the performance of virtually wall-less venous cannulas

Aim: This study was designed to quantify the influence of blood as test medium compared to water in cannula bench performance assessment. Methods: An in vitro circuit was set-up with silicone tubing between two reservoirs. The test medium was pumped from the lower reservoir by centrifugal pump to the upper reservoir. The test-cannula was inserted in a silicone tube connected between the lower reservoir and the centrifugal pump. Flow rate and pump inlet-pressure were measured for wall-less versus thin-wall cannula using a centrifugal pump in a dynamic bench-test for an afterload of 40-60 mmHg using two media: blood 10 g/dL and 5.6 g/dL and water 0 g/dL. Results: The wall-less cannula showed significantly higher flows rates as compared to the thin-wall cannula (control), with both hemoglobin concentrations and water. Indeed, for a target volume of 200-250 mL of blood (Hg 10 g/dL) in the upper reservoir, the cannula outlet pressure (P) was −14 ± 14 mmHg versus −18 ± 11 mmHg for the wall-less and control respectively; the cannula outlet flow rate (Q) was 3.91 ± 0.41 versus 3.67 ± 0.45 L/min, respectively. At the same target volume but with a Hg of 5.7 g/dL, P was −16 ± 12 mmHg versus −19 ± 12 mmHg and Q was 4 ± 0.1 versus 4 ± 0.4 L/min for the wall-less cannula and control respectively. Likewise, P and Q values with water were −1 mmHg versus −0.67 ± 0.58 mmHg and 4.17 ± 0.45 L/min versus 4.08 ± 0.47 L/min for the wall-less and control respectively. Conclusion: Walls-less cannula showed 5.6% less pump inlet-pressure differences calculated between blood and water, as compared to that of thin-wall cannula (−21 times). Flow differences were 6% and 10% for the walls-less and thin-wall cannula respectively. We conclude that testing the cannula performance with water is a good scenario and can overestimate the flow by a 10%. However, superiority for wall-less is preserved with both water and blood.