T. Rath et al.: J Extra Corpor Technol 2026, 58, 19 – 31 31
reservoir and vacuum-assisted venous drainage levels. Artif Organs. 2020; 44( 1): 28 – 39. https:// doi. org / 10.1111 / aor. 13404.
35. Miyamoto S, Soh Z, Okahara S, et al. Neural network-based modeling of the number of microbubbles generated with four circulation factors in cardiopulmonary bypass. Sci Rep. 2021; 11( 1): 549. https:// doi. org / 10.1038 / s41598 – 020-80810 – 3.
36. Miyamoto S, Soh Z, Okahara S, et al. The number of microbubbles generated during cardiopulmonary bypass can be estimated using machine learning from suction flow rate, venous reservoir level, perfusion flow rate, hematocrit level, and blood temperature. IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol. 2024; 5:66 – 74. https:// doi. org / 10.1109 / OJEMB. 2024.3350922.
37. Sancheti M, Rentschler M, Bolch C, et al. Designing an experimental method for assessing biocompatibility of circuit coatings using biomarkers for platelet activation during cardiopulmonary bypass. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2024; 56( 2): 37 – 44. https:// doi. org / 10.1051 / ject / 2024003.
38. Jamiolkowski MA, Patel M, Golding MD, Malinauskas RA, Lu Q. Comparison of animal and human blood for in vitro dynamic thrombogenicity testing of biomaterials. Artif Organs. 2022; 46( 12): 2400 – 2411. https:// doi. org / 10.1111 / aor. 14366.
39. R Core Team( 2023). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https:// www. R-project. org /.
40. Bird JC, de Ruiter R, Courbin L, Stone HA. Daughter bubble cascades produced by folding of ruptured thin films. Nature. 2010; 465( 7299): 759 – 762. https:// doi. org / 10.1038 / nature09069.
41. Harea GT, Karaliou V, Roberts TR, et al. Dynamics of appearance and decay of gaseous microemboli during in vitro extracorporeal circulation. Perfusion. 2022; 37( 3): 242 – 248. https:// doi. org / 10.1177 / 0267659121991423.
42. Jabur GN, Merry AF, McGeorge A, Cavadino A, Donnelly J, Mitchell SJ. A prospective observational study on the effect of emboli exposure on cerebral autoregulation in cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. Perfusion. 2022; 38( 5): 1045 – 1052. https:// doi. org / 10.1177 / 02676591221094696.
43. Muth CM, Shank ES. Gas embolism. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342( 7): 476 – 482. https:// doi. org / 10.1056 / NEJM20000217342 0706.
44. Mitchell SJ, Merry AF. Perspective on cerebral microemboli in cardiac surgery: significant problem or much ado about nothing? J Extra Corpor Technol. 2015; 47:10 – 15.
45. Stump DA. Embolic factors associated with cardiac surgery. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2005; 9( 2): 151 – 152. https:// doi. org / 10.1177 / 108925320500900208.
46. Groom RC, Quinn RD, Lennon P, et al. Microemboli from cardiopulmonary bypass are associated with a serum marker of brain injury. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2010; 42:40 – 44.
47. Murkin JM. Attenuation of neurologic injury during cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001; 72( 5): S1838-S1844. https:// doi. org / 10.1016 / S0003-4975( 01) 03258-1.
48. Mitchell SJ, Gorman D. The pathophysiology of cerebral arterial gas embolism. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2002;( 34): 18 – 23.
49. Melnyk V, Fedorko L, Djaiani G. Microemboli on cardiopulmonary bypass: Should we care? J Cardiothoracic Vasc Anesth. 2020; 34( 6): 1504 – 1505. https:// doi. org / 10.1053 / j. jvca. 2020.02.022.
50. 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. https:// doi. org / 10.1177 / 0267659119867572.
51. Westerberg M, Gäbel J, Bengtsson A, Sellgren J, Eidem O, Jeppsson A. Hemodynamic effects of cardiotomy suction blood. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006; 131( 6): 1352 – 1357. https:// doi. org / 10.1016 / j. jtcvs. 2005.12.067.
52. Skrabal CA, Khosravi A, Choi YH, et al. Pericardial suction blood separation attenuates inflammatory response and hemolysis after cardiopulmonary bypass. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2006; 40( 4): 219 – 223. https:// doi. org / 10.1080 / 14017430600628201.
53. Condello I, Santarpino G, Nasso G, et al. Air, inflammation and biocompatibility of the extracorporeal circuits. Perfusion. 2021; 36( 8): 781 – 785. https:// doi. org / 10.1177 / 0267659120968364.
54. De Somer FMJJ, Vetrano MR, Van Beeck JPAJ, Van Nooten GJ. Extracorporeal bubbles: a word of caution. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010; 10( 6): 995 – 1001. https:// doi. org / 10.1510 / icvts. 2009.229088.
55. Segers T, Stehouwer MC, de Somer FMJJ, de Mol BA, Versluis M. Optical verification and in-vitro characterization of two commercially available acoustic bubble counters for cardiopulmonary bypass systems. Perfusion. 2018; 33( 1): 16 – 24. https:// doi. org / 10.1177 / 0267659117722595.
56. Puthettu M, Vandenberghe S, Bagnato P, Gallo M, Demertzis S. Gaseous microemboli in the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit: presentation of a systematic data collection protocol applied at Istituto Cardiocentro Ticino. Cureus. 14( 2): e22310. https:// doi. org / 10.7759 / cureus. 22310.
Cite this article as: Rath T, Sugden M, Evans E, Dana K, Rentschler M, Bolch C & Darban NH. The effect of surgical field suction flow rate and venous reservoir levels on gaseous microemboli transmission. J Extra Corpor Technol 2026, 58, 19 – 31. https:// doi. org / 10.1051 / ject / 2025067.