This   level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Cardiology / Radiology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Cardiology task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the Radiology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Cardiopulmonary bypass. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 31 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JTKennedyIII. Peer reviewers: Cdodson1, Melmd2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 16:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Would adding information about the Dodrill GMR be relevant here? I think it should be included.

Take a look at this quote from a paper I was reading:

On July 3, 1952, a 41-year-old male suffering from shortness of breath made medical history at Harper University Hospital in Michigan. The Dodrill-GMR heart machine, considered by some to be the first operational mechanical heart was successfully used while performing heart surgery (Stephenson, Arbulu and Bassett) (American Heart Association). The machine performs the functions of the heart, allowing doctors to detour blood and stop the heart of a patient during an operation. The machine is external of the body and is only used during an operation. Dr. Forest Dewey Dodrill, a surgeon at Wayne State University’s Harper Hospital in Detroit, developed the machine with funding from The American Heart Association and volunteer engineers from General Motors (American Heart Association). Dr. Dodrill used the machine in 1952 to bypass Henry Opitek’s left ventricle for 50 minutes while he opened the patient's left atrium and worked to repair the mitral valve. In Dodrill’s post operative report he notes, “To our knowledge, this is the first instance of survival of a patient when a mechanical heart mechanism was used to take over the complete body function of maintaining the blood supply of the body while the heart was open and operated on (Stephenson, Arbulu and Bassett).”

This is a great reference: Stephenson, Larry W, et al. "The Michigan Heart: The World's First Successful Open Heart Operation?" Journal of Cardiac Surgery 17.3 (2002): 238-246.

Available to read here http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-8191.2002.tb01209.x

-- http://www.njedelman.com 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I added it- Strictly speaking its not cardiopulmonary bypass since the oxygenator was not used, but I think its an important part of the development of the technique. Chitownhustler ( talk) 02:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiments_in_the_Revival_of_Organisms

still maybe somewhat related?

No signature on the above question

I agree this is somewhat related, but not sufficient to be included in the mainstream use of CBP. The Revival of Organisms film is a dramatic demonstration that CPB is effective to replace the heart and lungs. A section about early CPB experimentation should be added to the history section, but the above link would be better associated with an article on suspended animation or artificial organs.

Dlodge 22:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I moved the section on cannulation sites into a table to give a neater appearance. The longer from in my previous edit would be more appropriate if further description was given to the reason behind choice of sites. However I feel this technical description is way beyond the scope of wikipedia. Perhaps an external link to Edmunds would be appropriate for anyone interested in the technical details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dlodge ( talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC). reply

Someone added "Another key factor is a small group of ninjas that slice air into the blood." I removed the line 5/18/2007

This article suggests that the first machine was build as early as 1885. It was tested on dogs at least. More references inside the document. -- 212.255.39.8 ( talk) 22:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Systematic review on the risk factors for delirium: doi:10.1186/s13054-015-1060-0 JFW |  T@lk 10:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Should an "in popular culture" section be added, specifically, in greys anatomy, this is big. 184.60.31.237 ( talk) 02:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

No, they tend to just fill up with fancruft and get UNDUE weight. Jytdog ( talk) 03:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

the following is unsourced; moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please don't restore without first finding reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them.

During the 1940s, a Russian scientist named Sergei Brukhonenko developed a machine called the Autojektor (or Autojector), capable of substituting the heart of a living organism. In a documentary entitled Experiments in the Revival of Organisms, which showed the Autojektor in use, the severed head of a canine was attached to the Autojektor. The Autojektor then supplied blood and oxygen to the head, keeping it in a basic level of consciousness. In a second experiment detailed in the film, the autojektor was used to drain the blood from a dog's circulatory system, then used to replace it after ten minutes. The animal appeared to have suffered no ill effects from the procedure. While the Autojektor was a primitive system, advanced versions of the technology it used can be found in modern ECMO machines.

-- Jytdog ( talk) 02:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Good evening! My name is John and I am a fourth-year medical student at the University of Central Florida College of Medicine enrolled in a WikiProject medicine course. I am pursuing a career in cardiothoracic surgery, and thus, I have chosen to work on the cardiopulmonary bypass Wiki. This is my first time participating as a Wikipedia editor, and I would be gracious for your advice and patience!

Below is a brief overview of my workplan for this article:

General: The structure of the article can be re-organized to follow the suggested "Surgeries and procedures" outline found in the WikiProject Medicine Manual of Style (medical uses, contra-indications, risks/complications, technique, recovery or rehabilitation, history, society and culture, special populations, other animals). The "Components" section will be kept.

Lead: The lead seems to be an ideal spot to introduce the basic concepts of cardiopulmonary bypass--i.e., de-oxygenated blood is drained from the venous system, oxygenated by the CPB machine, and returned to the body through the arterial system. The last paragraph of the 'Uses' section may be suitable for relocation to the lead.

Uses: This section could be parred down, namely by relocating the last paragraph to the lead as mentioned above. As is, this section starts with a very specific example. I think a broader introduction to the uses of CPB--i.e., operations in which the heart needs to be arrested and/or opened--would provide a better overview for readers before delving into specific examples.

Contra-indications: Although there are no true contra-indications, there are several patient factors which should be considered prior to CPB including renal function, calcification, and hematologic disorders.

Risks/Complications: Discussion of protamine reactions would be a useful addition to the current section. This section is also lacking references.

Components: The current documentation here provides a great start. However, it could easily be expanded and is currently lacking in the way of references.

Technique: Analogous to the current "Operation" section. This section could use extensive expansion to cover topics including anticoagulation, cannulation strategy, cardioplegia strategy, initiation (including RAP & VAP), cooling/rewarming techniques, and weaning. Circulatory arrest also deserves mention. A brief overview of ECMO technique may also be useful here.

Recovery: This section does not currently exist, but would likely look similar to general recovery from cardiac surgery--e.g., hemodynamic monitoring, presser support, etc.

History: This section provides a nice overview of the history. However, the development of CPB, including C. Walton Lillehei's cross-circulation, deserve recognition here.

Society and Culture: This would likely pertain to open-heart surgery in general, but discussion of the stigma surrounding hear surgery during its early stages could be mentioned here. It would also be a good place to discuss the ethical dilemma of Lillehei's cross-circulation here.

Special Populations: Need to mention HITT & factor deficiencies here, among others.

Other Animals: The role of canines in the development of CPB could be discussed either here or in the history section.

JTKennedyIII ( talk) 20:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi User:JKennedyIII. Charlene here, your peer reviewer for the Winter 2020, WikiMed Project. I have read your additions and my comments are below.

I agree, the uses section does flow well having it right after the lead section. I also like that you added a broader sentence to the beginning of the user paragraph for readers to have a general understanding before diving into specific examples.

Great job on adding the Contraindications and Special Considerations section! That is a very important information for patients wanting to know about this procedure. I can imagine that is a topic that comes up a lot in consultations. These can be difficult complications to explain, but I think you did a good job on making it understandable to most readers without a medical background.

The section on protamine sulfate as a complication is written at a higher level than the other sections, for example, when talking about the cross sensitivity or the different types, but I understand how this can be challenging to make simpler. There are very specific examples of the type of machinery used in this procedure and I can see that you added more information to each section, which is very helpful. I like that you added some information to those sections comparing the pumps as well.

Wow, the technique section is quite impressive! You taught me a lot about the procedure. This, I can imagine, is probably one of the most important sections for patients and their families. When undergoing a CPB, you can expect an intense procedure to follow and with that comes intense worries and stress for the patient, so having separate section outlining the technique can be invaluable.

Great job adding references to most of the sentences. I think there were a couple of sentences throughout the article that needed more references, but your addition has been substantial thus far.

I also think overall, it is written more clearly and understandable to the general population, by making sentences succinct with lots of periods. As far as the references, most of them have been written in the 2000’s but not a lot have been written in the past 5 years. I can understand if there aren’t a lot of meta analyses and systematic reviews done on this subject recently, as it seems there hasn’t been substantial changes to the techniques, uses, complications sections you worked on. Overall, you did a wonderful job John! I think your contributions will have a substantial impact on the wiki community and global readers! Cdodson1 ( talk) 15:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Melissa Peer Review

Hi John! Melissa here, one of your peer reviewers for Wikiproject Medicine! I will do my best not to repeat things that Charlene has critiqued.

Overall, I will start by saying I think you did a fantastic job on this article! It is very well written, organized, and concise. The main critiques that I have are grammatical errors/ things to assist with the flow of some paragraphs:

First sentence where you address oxygen content of patient's body could be reworded maybe "maintaining the circulation of blood which ensures that your body is receiving adequate amounts of oxygen.

In the second paragraph where you start discussing the use of cannulas, maybe add a sentence that states that the machine requires the use of 2 cannulas just to further signify that one is used to remove the venous blood and the other is used to return the oxygenated blood

Nice job on the uses section. Very clear and easy to understand

Add an a in the sentence "A Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is A thoracic"

Consider adding a link to "retrograde cardiopledgia"

Take out the period in the sentence "CPB is known to activate the coagulation cascade and stimulate inflammatory mediators(.) leading to hemolysis and coagulopathies."

Insulin is misspelled in the sentence "Patients with prior exposure to protamine"

Again overall great job and wonderful contribution to Wikiproject! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melmd2020 ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 7 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eelaraa ( article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Eaturvegeez ( talk) 19:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply