The Journal of ExtraCorporeal Technology No 57-1 | Seite 26

20 V . A . dos Reis Filho et al .: J Extra Corpor Technol 2025 , 57 , 18 – 23
[ Brazilian Society for Extracorporeal Circulation ] and working in the area for at least 5 years have participated in the research . Each one of them was invited through an informative letter in which the study description and all stages were duly outlined . Also , the participants signed the Informed Consent Form ( ICF ) and were free to withdraw from the research at any moment .
An initial questionnaire was developed based on relevant contents selected according to the project ’ s purpose . A detailed review of the literature was made , focused on the pre-bypass care and aiming at finding the information required for a safe perfusion . Based on these findings , essential safety actions were identified in the cardiopulmonary bypass practice , which became the items to be checked for the instrument in making . This preliminary list had 42 items and , based on them , the instrument was sent to the subjects , and it was requested that they would accept or exclude the list stages during the first interaction , by marking YES or NO in the appropriate field . Also , the experts were encouraged to , if they wished to , include new tasks to the list , combine existing items , or provide further comments . This stage was the first Delphi questionnaire round , in which the responses were collected and analyzed , and the agreement and disagreement points were identified for the elements in the preliminary list . The score over 90 % of acceptance would be kept on the list .
Based on the expert ’ s responses in the first round , a second list containing 37 items was prepared and sent once again to the subjects . A 1 – 5 scale was used to assess the importance and relevance of each item ( 1 = totally disagree and 5 = totally agree ). The subjects were invited to review and reassess the scores , based on the results and feedback obtained in the previous round . A report was prepared with a summary of the results obtained in the first round .
The experts could attribute the score and had the opportunity to provide additional comments or rationale to the assessment . These comments were important to refine the understanding of results and provide valuable insights for the decision-making process . The comments and suggestions were considered in the refinement phase of the checklist .
According to the responses given by experts in the second round , the items that were not consistent with the statistical criteria of mean 4andSD 1 . 0 would be excluded from the checklist . The final version was based on these results .
Results
The first round revealed a high agreement level between the five specialists when it comes to most of the items assessed in the questionnaire . Out of the 42 elements on the list , 38 had an approval score over 90 %, marked as “ YES ”, showing strong consensus points among the specialists in the preliminary questionnaire . However , it is important to point out that 4 items ( Custodiol Solution ; Volts – 110 / 220 ; Level Sensor ; Bubble Sensor ) were scored under 90 % or did not receive enough responses to determine a clear consensus . The percentage of approved items in a total of 42 was approximately 90.48 % ( 38 ) and the percentage of non-approved items was approximately 9.52 % ( 4 ). These results highlighted the need for a
Table 2 . Final list with 37 elements that were assessed as mean 4 and SD 1.02 .
Items version 2
Mean
SD
Patient 01 Identification / Weight / Height
4.4
0.54
02 Pathology
4.4
0.54
03 Surgical procedure
4.4
0.89
04 Calculations ( heparin / flows )
4.8
0.44
05 Blood products checking
4.8
0.44
Equipment 06 Equipment clean
4.6
0.54
07 Power cables
4.6
0.89
08 Heater-cooler
4.8
0.44
CPB machine 09 Initial test ( Rollers / Water lines / Heat exchanger )
4.8
0.44
10 Hand crank
4.8
0.44
11 Level sensor
4.0
0.63
12 Bubble sensor
4.2
0.44
13 Battery
4.6
0.89
Centrifugal pump 14 Console / Driver / Battery
4.4
0.89
15 Flow sensor
4.8
0.44
16 Manual hand crank
4.8
0.44
17 Operational test
4.4
0.54
Gas supply 18 O2 / air regulation valve
4.6
0.54
19 Lines : O2 / Air ( Connected )
4.6
0.54
20 Blender / Flowmeter / FIO2
4.6
0.54
Materials 21 Pharmacy kit
4.6
0.54
22 Oxygenator and components
4.4
0.89
23 Reynald clamps for tubes
4.4
0.89
24 Ice
4.6
0.89
Circuit preparation 25 Safely connecting the tubes
4.8
0.44
26 Perfusate
5.0
0.0
27 Calibration of the arterial roller and aspirators
4.4
0.54
28 Air removal from the system
4.6
0.54
29 No leakage in the circuit
4.4
0.54
Cardioplegia 30 Test in the cardioplegia module
4.2
0.83
31 Circuit assembly / checking
4.4
0.54
32 Cardioplegia solution
4.2
0.97
Vacuum system 33 Vacuum regulator
4.6
0.89
34 Relief valve
5.0
0.0
Before Starting CPB 35 Heparin dosage
4.4
0.54
36 Anticoagulation / ACT
4.6
0.54
37 Arterial line test
5.0
0.0
* CPB – cardiopulmonary bypass ; ACT – activated coagulation time .
deeper analysis and additional discussions for the subsequent Delphi questionnaire rounds ( Table 1 ).
Therefore , 2 items ( Custodiol Solution ; Volts – 110 / 220 ) were excluded for not complying with the 90 % of acceptance condition , and 4 ( Pathology ; Equipment Clean ; Machine Battery ; Ice ) were included as a suggestion by the specialists . Ten elements were rewritten or repositioned ( Heater ; Cooler ; Initial Test ; Rollers ; Water Lines ; Heat Exchanger ; Driver ; Pump Battery ; Blender – FIO2 , Flowmeter ), resulting in a more