K. Kırali et al.: J Extra Corpor Technol 2025, 57, 74 – 81 81
group suggest that this system may better preserve cellular integrity, potentially due to its established mechanisms to mitigate blood-air interface exposure and microemboli formation. This finding warrants further exploration, as it may reveal additional nuances regarding cellular preservation between the two systems. Additional parameters, including mean arterial pressure, creatinine, and C-reactive protein showed no significant differences between groups, indicating stable hemodynamic and inflammatory responses. ICU and hospital length of stay, along with mechanical ventilation durations, were also similar, reflecting comparable recovery time between the two systems.
A critical difference between the systems lies in the management of venous drainage. The MiECC system, being a closed circuit, often requires additional time to stabilize venous drainage prior to aortic cross-clamping. This stabilization is influenced by factors such as patient positioning, venous cannula placement, and adjustments to the active drainage system connected. These adjustments can introduce a delay, especially when ensuring proper venous return to maintain circuit integrity and avoid circuit air entrapment. In contrast, the HS system, simplifies venous drainage vision and management. The system allows for more flexible positioning and quicker adaptation to changes during the procedure, reducing the need for additional stabilization time. This efficiency in setup and operation could translate into shorter CPB times, even if this was not significant in the current analysis. Further multicentre studies with larger samples are recommended to validate these findings and to assess long-term outcomes of each system in broader patient populations.
Conclusion
The HS demonstrated comparable, if not advantageous, results when matched against the MiECC in patients undergoing isolated CABG. Indexed oxygen delivery was similar in the two groups, while differences in partial pressure of oxygen and overall ICU and hospital stay durations were minimal between groups. Additionally, the HS offers a more intuitive management approach compared to the MiECC technique, potentially simplifying perioperative handling and reducing the learning curve for clinical teams. These results underscore that the HS is not inferior to MiECC; on the contrary, it presents an efficient and user-friendly alternative with promising outcomes. Further studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to confirm these findings and to assess potential advantages in broader clinical settings.
Funding This research did not receive any specific funding.
Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data availability statement
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author due to ethical considerations.
Author contribution statement
K. K and M. A.: original draft revision; O. A., M. E. G. and S. A.: Investigation and Data curation; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Ethics approval
The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board( IRB) of Kos ßuyolu High Specialization Education and Research Hospital, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to enrollment. This study was conducted in accordance with the principles out lined in the Declaration of Helsinki.
References
1. Özgür MM, Aksüt M, Özer T, et al. Comparison of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation versus standard cardiopulmonary bypass systems on coronary artery bypass surgery. Turk Gogus Kalp Dam. 2024; 32( 2): 141 – 150.
2. Condello I, Nasso G, Staessens K, et al. Gaseous micro-embolic activity and goal-directed perfusion management in a closed system for cardiopulmonary bypass and minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation during coronary artery bypass grafting. Surg Technol Int. 2023; 43: sti 43 / 1721.
3. Velho TR, Pereira RM, Guerra NC, et al. The impact of cardiopulmonary bypass time on the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score after cardiac surgery. Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2024; 38( 5): ivae082.
4. Aydın S, Cekmecelioğlu D, Çelik S, Yerli I, Kırali K. The effect of vacuum-assisted venous drainage on hemolysis during cardiopulmonary bypass. Am J Cardiovasc Dis. 2020; 10( 4): 473 – 478.
5. Stehouwer MC, de Vroege R, Bruggemans EF, et al.. The influence of gaseous microemboli on various biomarkers after minimized cardiopulmonary bypass. Perfusion. 2020; 35( 3): 202 – 208.
6. Delen C, Kizmaz YU, Erkilinc A, Altinay AE, Shander A, Kirali MK. Creating blood conservation for a cardiothoracic surgical hospital: when you have to start from scratch! Cardiovasc J Afr. 2023; 34( 3): 164 – 168.
7. Anastasiadis K, Antonitsis P, Murkin J, et al. 2021 MiECTiS focused update on the 2016 position paper for the use of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation in cardiac surgery. Perfusion. 2023; 38( 7): 1360 – 1383.
8. Kırali K, Aksüt M, Altasß Ö, Gürcü ME, Aydın S. First worldwide use of the hybrid system for extracorporeal circulation in heart transplant. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024; 19( 1): 495.
9. Kırali K, Çekmecelioğlu D, Özer T, Basß T, Yük H. Pathophysiology of cardiopulmonary bypass. In: Kırali K, Coselli JS, Kalangos A, Editors. Cardiopulmonary bypass: advances in extracorporeal life support. Vol. 1. England: Elsevier; 2023. p. 135 – 154.
10. Chotimol P, Lansdowne W, Machin D, Binas K, Angelini GD, Gibbison B. Hypobaric type oxygenators – physics and physiology, Perfusion. 2025; 40( 2): 273 – 282.
Cite this article as: Kırali K, Aksüt M, Altaş Ö, Gürcü ME, & Aydın S. Comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes between hybrid system and MiECC: A prospective pilot study. J Extra Corpor Technol 2025, 57, 74 – 81. https:// doi. org / 10.1051 / ject / 2025001.