An evaluation of the benefits of pulsatile versus nonpulsatile perfusion during cardiopulmonary bypass procedures in pediatric and adult cardiac patients.

The controversy over the benefits of pulsatile and nonpulsatile flow during cardiopulmonary bypass procedures continues. The objective of this investigation was to review the literature in order to clarify the truths and dispel the myths regarding the mode of perfusion used during open-heart surgery in pediatric and adult patients. The Google and Medline databases were used to search all of the literature on pulsatile vs. nonpulsatile perfusion published between 1952 and 2006. We found 194 articles related to this topic in the literature. Based on our literature search, we determined that pulsatile flow significantly improved blood flow of the vital organs including brain, heart, liver, and pancreas; reduced the systemic inflammatory response syndrome; and decreased the incidence of postoperative deaths in pediatric and adult patients. We also found evidence that pulsatile flow significantly improved vital organ recovery in several types of animal models when compared with nonpulsatile perfusion. Several investigators have also shown that pulsatile flow generates more hemodynamic energy, which maintains better microcirculation compared with nonpulsatile flow. These results clearly suggest that pulsatile flow is superior to nonpulsatile flow during and after open-heart surgery in pediatric and adult patients.