Why the study?
Does coronary perfusion improve left ventricular contractile force compared to hypothermia in patients undergoing open-heart surgery for acquired aortic valve disease?
Does coronary perfusion improve left ventricular contractile force compared to hypothermia in patients undergoing open-heart surgery for acquired aortic valve disease?
Coronary perfusion provides better protection of left ventricular contractility than hypothermia during prolonged aortic occlusion in open-heart surgery.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Coronary perfusion was associated with better LV protection in prolonged occlusion; leaves open whether to prefer it over hypothermia in aortic valve surgery.
Forty-five patients undergoing open-heart surgery for acquired aortic valve disease were studied with measurements of left ventricular contractile force. The data presented clearly indicate that coronary perfusion afforded, on the average, better protection to left ventricular contractility as recorded by a strain-gage arch than did hypothermia. This was particularly true in the usual case, which required an hour or longer of aortic occlusion. Patients who required 40 minutes or less of aortic occlusion demonstrated approximately identical decreases in contractile force with hypothermia or coronary perfusion. Bilateral coronary perfusion did not usually afford much additional left ventricular protection as compared to unilateral left coronary perfusion. In a small number of patients with significant coronary arterial occlusion, bilateral coronary perfusion appeared to give better left ventricular protection.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William G. Austen (1965) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: