Key result
Custodiol cardioplegia reduces cross-clamp time by ~18 minutes versus cold blood cardioplegia.
Why the study?
Optimal myocardial protection remains critical in complex cardiac procedures, particularly double valve replacement operations, but comparative data on Custodiol versus cold blood cardioplegia are limited.
Does Custodiol cardioplegia improve safety and efficacy of myocardial protection compared to cold blood cardioplegia in adults undergoing elective double valve replacement surgery?
Does Custodiol cardioplegia improve safety and efficacy of myocardial protection compared to cold blood cardioplegia in adults undergoing elective double valve replacement surgery?
Absolute Event Rate: 98.5% vs 116.1%
Custodiol cardioplegia provides effective myocardial protection with shorter ischemic times and hospital stays compared to cold blood cardioplegia in double valve replacement surgery, despite higher ventricular fibrillation rates.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bastawisy et al. (2025) studied Elective double valve replacement (DVR) surgery (n=120). Custodiol cardioplegia vs. Cold blood cardioplegia (CBCP) was evaluated on Aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time. Custodiol cardioplegia demonstrated superior operative efficiency with shorter aortic cross-clamp time (98.5 vs 116.1 min) compared to cold blood cardioplegia, despite increased VF rates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: