Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective study compares myocardial outcomes with and without hot-shot cardioplegia in patients, suggesting no significant benefits.
Background: Many solutions and techniques have been developed to protect the myocardium during cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Hot-shot cardioplegia is given during removal of the aortic cross-clamp, i.e. during restart of the heart, but its necessity and additional benefit are controversial. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the necessity and/or extra benefit of hot-shot cardioplegia administration and early clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Methods: This retrospective study included a total of 686 patients who underwent cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The study groups were defined as patients without hot-shot cardioplegia (Group 1) and patients with hot-shot cardioplegia (Group 2). Descriptive data and early clinical outcomes of the groups were compared. Results: Demographic and descriptive data of the patients included in the study were similar in both groups (p > 0.05). There was no difference between the groups in potassium levels, Creatine Kinase-Myocardial Bound and Cardiac Troponin T levels indicative of myocardial necrosis, and Carbohydrate Reactive Protein levels indicative of inflammation (p > 0.05). In addition, there was no difference in the need for intracardiac defibrillation, inotrope requirement during cardiopulmonary bypass weaning, intra-aortic balloon pump requirement, early postoperative arrhythmia, atrial fibrillation, duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, hospital stay and mortality rates (p > 0.05). Conclusion: In conclusion, it is thought that hot-shot cardioplegia application does not provide any additional benefit in preventing myocardial damage or in postoperative clinical and metabolic markers in cardiac surgery performed with cardiopulmonary bypass.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amaç et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: