Back

Impact of intraoperative use of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on the status of von Willebrand factor large multimers during single lung transplantation

Oishi, H.; Okada, Y.; Suzuki, Y.; Hirama, T.; Ejima, Y.; Fujimaki, S.-i.; Sugawara, S.; Okubo, N.; Horiuchi, H.

2023-02-10 surgery
10.1101/2023.02.07.23285614 medRxiv
Show abstract

Purposevon Willebrand factors (vWFs), hemostatic factors, are produced as large multimers and are shear stress-dependently cleaved to become the appropriate size. A reduction in vWF large multimers develops in various conditions including the use of extracorporeal life support, which can cause excessive-high shear stress in the blood flow and result in hemostatic disorders. The objective of this prospective study was to investigate the impact of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) use on the status of vWF large multimers and hemostatic disorders during single lung transplantation (SLT). MethodsWe prospectively enrolled 12 patients who underwent SLT at our center. Among them, seven patients were supported by VV ECMO intraoperatively (ECMO group) and the remaining five patients underwent SLT without ECMO support (control group). The vWF large multimer index (%) was defined as the ratio of the large multimer proportion in total vWF (vWF large multimer ratio) derived from a patients plasma to that from the standard human plasma. ResultsThe vWF large multimer index at the end of the surgery was significantly lower in the ECMO group than in the control group (112.6% vs. 75.8%, respectively; p < 0.05). The intraoperative blood loss and the amounts of intraoperative transfusion products in the ECMO group tended to be greater than those in the control group; however, the differences were not significant. ConclusionDuring SLT, the intraoperative use of VV ECMO caused a decrease in the vWF large multimer index. However, the vWF large multimer index was maintained at > 75% in average at the end of SLT, which did not affect the bleeding complications.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 3%
28.4%
2
Transfusion
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
24.7%
50% of probability mass above
3
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.3%
4
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
5
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
6
BioMed Research International
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.3%
7
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 51%
2.1%
8
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.0%
9
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
65 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
10
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
11
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
12
Critical Care
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
13
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
14
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
15
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
16
Transplantation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
17
Virologica Sinica
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
18
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
19
BMC Neurology
12 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
20
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 28%
0.5%
21
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
22
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
23
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%