The Maximal Pore Size of Hydrophobic Microporous Membranes Does Not Fully Characterize the Resistance to Plasma Breakthrough of Membrane Devices for Extracorporeal Blood Oxygenation.

ECMO membrane plasma breakthrough pore size surfactants

Journal

Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology
ISSN: 2296-4185
Titre abrégé: Front Bioeng Biotechnol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101632513

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 30 09 2019
accepted: 19 12 2019
entrez: 31 1 2020
pubmed: 31 1 2020
medline: 31 1 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in blood-outside devices equipped with hydrophobic membranes has become routine treatment of respiratory or cardiac failure. In spite of membrane hydrophobicity, significant amounts of plasma water may form in the gas compartment during treatment, an event termed plasma water breakthrough. When this occurs, plasma water occludes some gas pathways and ultimately cripples the oxygenator gas exchange capacity requiring its substitution. This causes patient hemodilution and increases the activation of the patient's immune system. On these grounds, the resistance to plasma water breakthrough is regarded as an important feature of ECMO devices. Many possible events may explain the occurrence of plasma breakthrough. In spite of this, the resistance to plasma breakthrough of ECMO devices is commercially characterized only with respect to the membrane maximal pore size, evaluated by the bubble pressure method or by SEM analysis of membrane surfaces. The discrepancy between the complexity of the events causing plasma breakthrough in ECMO devices (hence determining their resistance to plasma breakthrough), and that claimed commercially has caused legal suits on the occasion of the purchase of large stocks of ECMO devices by large hospitals or regional institutions. The main aim of this study was to identify some factors that contribute to determining the resistance to plasma breakthrough of ECMO devices, as a means to minimize litigations triggered by an improper definition of the requirements of a clinically efficient ECMO device. The results obtained show that: membrane resistance to breakthrough should be related to the size of the pores inside the membrane wall rather than at its surface; membranes with similar nominal maximal pore size may exhibit pores with significantly different size distribution; membrane pore size distribution rather than the maximal pore size determines membrane resistance to breakthrough; the presence of surfactants in the patient's blood (e.g., lipids, alcohol, etc.) may significantly modify the intrinsic membrane resistance to breakthrough, more so the higher the surfactant concentration. We conclude that the requirements of ECMO devices in terms of resistance to plasma breakthrough ought to account for all these factors and not rely only on membrane maximal pore size.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31998713
doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00461
pmc: PMC6966091
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

461

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Fragomeni, Terzini, Comite and Catapano.

Références

ASAIO J. 2004 Sep-Oct;50(5):491-7
pubmed: 15497391
ASAIO J. 1992 Jul-Sep;38(3):M399-405
pubmed: 1457890
J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1981 May;19(5):267-71
pubmed: 7264568
J Artif Organs. 2018 Dec;21(4):475-478
pubmed: 29860680
Ann Thorac Surg. 1997 Jun;63(6):1730-6
pubmed: 9205175
ASAIO Trans. 1989 Jul-Sep;35(3):640-3
pubmed: 2512975
J Biomed Eng. 1988 Nov;10(6):541-7
pubmed: 3070171
Respir Care. 2018 Sep;63(9):1162-1173
pubmed: 30166411
Artif Organs. 1991 Feb;15(1):15-22
pubmed: 1998486
ASAIO Trans. 1988 Jan-Mar;34(1):43-7
pubmed: 3132188
Perfusion. 2015 Oct;30(7):600-3
pubmed: 25575705
Int J Artif Organs. 1992 Jun;15(6):327-30
pubmed: 1639522
J Biomed Mater Res. 1993 Oct;27(10):1309-14
pubmed: 8245045
JAMA. 2000 Feb 16;283(7):904-8
pubmed: 10685715
Int J Artif Organs. 2005 Jan;28(1):30-4
pubmed: 15742307
ASAIO J. 1996 Sep-Oct;42(5):M451-4
pubmed: 8944922

Auteurs

Gionata Fragomeni (G)

Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Magna Graecia University, Catanzaro, Italy.

Mara Terzini (M)

Department of Mechanical and Aero-Space Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy.

Antonio Comite (A)

Department of Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.

Gerardo Catapano (G)

Department of Mechanical, Energy and Management Engineering, University of Calabria, Rende, Italy.

Classifications MeSH