{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0187683284457478, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01407624633431085, 'mean_word_length': 5.511450381679389, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?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}}
Evaluation of Quadrox-i and Capiox FX neonatal oxygenators with integrated arterial filters in eliminating gaseous microemboli and retaining hemodynamic properties during simulated cardiopulmonary bypass

Perfusion quality during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) procedures can contribute to postoperative neurological complications and influence patient recovery and outcome. Gaseous microemboli generated in the circuit and hemodynamic properties of blood reaching the patient can be monitored during CPB to optimize perfusion. Oxygenators that oxygenate the blood during CPB can significantly influence the quality of blood reaching the patient by their manufacturing designs. New hollow-fiber membrane oxygenators are developed with integrated arterial filters to reduce priming volume and eliminate a separate arterial filter in the circuit. To evaluate the performance of these new oxygenators, we used a simulated model to compare the Quadrox-i Neonatal and the Capiox Baby FX05 neonatal oxygenators and to provide a review of these oxygenators with their respective counterparts which have separate arterial filters. We found that microemboli counts for the new Quadrox-i and Capiox FX05 oxygenators are similar in the arterial line, but different across the oxygenator for all experimental conditions. The arterial purge line diverting blood from the patient reduces microemboli count for the Capiox FX05, but is inconsistent for the Quadrox-i Neonatal. While hemodynamic energy delivered to the patient is similar for both oxygenators, shunted blood flow for the Quadrox-i Neonatal oxygenator is three times higher than the Capiox FX05 (103.6 mL/min vs 33.0 mL/min at 400 mL/min and 35°C) (p<0.001).