Why the study?
Does intermittent warm blood cardioplegia increase endothelial injury compared to intermittent cold blood cardioplegia in patients undergoing elective on-pump CABG surgery?
Does intermittent warm blood cardioplegia increase endothelial injury compared to intermittent cold blood cardioplegia in patients undergoing elective on-pump CABG surgery?
The use of intermittent warm blood cardioplegia during CABG is associated with a higher extent of endothelial injury compared to cold blood cardioplegia, although without differences in short-term clinical endpoints.
Favors cold over warm cardioplegia to limit endothelial injury in CABG; extends RCT evidence on subclinical cardioplegia effects.
The aim of this investigation was to analyze the impact of intermittent cold blood cardioplegia (ICC) and intermittent warm blood cardioplegia (IWC) on endothelial injury in patients referred to elective on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Patients undergoing CABG procedures were randomized to either ICC or IWC. Myocardial injury was assessed by CK-MB and cardiac troponin T (cTnT). Endothelial injury was quantified by circulating endothelial cells (CECs), von Willebrand factor (vWF), and soluble thrombomodulin (sTM). Perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were recorded. Demographic data and preoperative risk profile of included patients (ICC: n = 32, IWC: n = 36) were comparable. No deaths, PMI, or MACE were observed. Levels of CK-MB and cTnT did not show intergroup differences. Concentrations of CECs peaked at 6 h postoperatively with significantly higher values for IWC-patients at 1 h (ICC: 10.1 ± 3.9/mL; IWC: 18.4 ± 4.1/mL; P = 0.012) and 6 h (ICC: 19.3 ± 6.2/mL; IWC: 29.2 ± 6.7/mL; P < 0.001). Concentrations of vWF (ICC: 178.4 ± 73.2 U/dL; IWC: 258.2 ± 89.7 U/dL; P < 0.001) and sTM (ICC: 3.2 ± 2.1 ng/mL; IWC: 5.2 ± 2.4 ng/mL; P = 0.011) were significantly elevated in IWC-group at 1 h postoperatively. This study shows that the use of IWC is associated with a higher extent of endothelial injury compared to ICC without differences in clinical endpoints.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kuhn et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: