Rapport fra den videnskabelige komite 2011/2012

Líney Símonardóttir, Iceland (chairman)
Micael Appelblad, Sweden
Vivian Høyland, Norway
Anne Louise Bellaiche, Danmark
Peter Fast Nielsen, Danmark

The main purpose of the scientific committee is:

  • Evaluate abstract for the annual SCANSECT meeting
  • Evaluate presentations and select a price winner
  • Guide the researcher and/or presenters
  • Support the SCANSECT president
  • Support the SCANSECT general secretary

Else and I had several Skype meetings with Birute Mockuviene, perfusionist, which is responsible for the perfusion part of the meeting in Vilnius. We had a brain storming meeting and after consulting the SCICOM we suggested theme and lecturer for the Vilnius meeting. Birute has put together a good and relevant program for Scandinavian perfusionists.

The SCICOM contacted administrating perfusionist in Nordic centres to encourage them to give their colleagues the time and opportunity to make a study or write a case study for the meeting in Vilnius.

On-line communication
A “Facebook” group for Nordic perfusionists was made last winter and the purpose was to be able to contact other Nordic perfusionist in a fast and easy way and, being able to ask questions and finding out about meetings and perhaps joining in a group. It is also possible to make small surveys in within the perfusion group. It is a closed page and only members can see it. At first I named it SCANSECT, but I had not got the permission from the SCANSECT board to use that name so I changed it to “Nordiske perfusionister”. I apologise for that. I encourage all perfusionists that use Facebook, to become a member. It seems that many perfusionists are very active on Facebook and it might be a good venue to perfusionists to contact each other.

It was crystal clear in the Facebook survey that the timing for the Vilnius meeting is not at all suitable for the small group of perfusionist. This week is still a holiday season and it is not easy to get time off to go to a meeting when few people are at work due to vacations. This is something that we have to give a better thought for meetings in the future.

Abstracts 2011
Last year in Tampere we had 7 abstracts for oral presentation. As we only got one abstract submitted before deadline it was decided to not give away prices for those sending in after deadline. The only price given was the;

Sponsor and amount SCANSECT. €500
Daniel Johagen, Umea, Sweden
Gaseous Microemboli elimination in Two Different Oxygenators: is there a benefit from screen filtration?

Abstracts 2012
We had 11 abstracts submitted for the meeting in Vilnius. Three of them were from invited speakers so they were not evaluated.  Six were accepted for oral presentation, two were rejected, and then we were offered one from SATS, which was rejected.

The future
Unfortunately the abstracts situation is not getting any better and perhaps we need to rethink the meetings altogether for perfusionists.

One suggestion is to have a theme at each meeting and invite perfusionist from the Nordic countries to view their experience, like we had H1N1 ECMO in Tampere 2011. We could also have “Theme chat” in smaller groups or “hands on” training. It all depending on what interest the SCANSECT group. But to be able to find out what the perfusion group wants we need to get response from perfusionist of what interest them. Perhaps the “Facebook” page could help us with that before the next meeting.

Reykjavik August 2012
Líney Simonardóttir
Scientific committee


Udgivet i Videnskabelig komite VIK / Uddannelseskomite UDK.