Why the study?
Does cold blood cardioplegia improve perioperative myocardial protection compared to cold crystalloid cardioplegia in patients with LVEF < 35% undergoing CABG?
Does cold blood cardioplegia improve perioperative myocardial protection compared to cold crystalloid cardioplegia in patients with LVEF < 35% undergoing CABG?
Cold blood cardioplegia provides superior perioperative myocardial protection and earlier restoration of myocardial function compared to crystalloid cardioplegia in CABG patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction.
Favors blood cardioplegia for better early hemodynamics and less injury in low-LVEF CABG; confirms superior protection versus crystalloid in this RCT.
This study was done to compare the protective effect of blood and crystalloid cardioplegia in patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Sixty consecutive patients with left ventricular ejection fraction < 35% scheduled for CABG with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass without additional procedures were randomly divided into two groups. In the first group we used cold blood cardioplegia, in the second group cold crystalloid cardioplegia, both delivered only ortogradely. We measured hemodynamic data in early hours after operation, enzyme release and we collected other clinical data which could be influenced by perioperative myocardial protection. There was no death in either group. We also didn't find any significant difference in incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction, arrhythmias and use of intraaortic balloon pumping between both groups. In an early hours after operation in the group with blood cardioplegia we found significantly better hemodynamic data (LVSWI, RVSWI) and significantly lower enzyme release. We conclude, that cold blood cardioplegia shows superior perioperative myocardial protection resulting in earlier restoration of myocardial function. This difference could be important in patients with high degree of left ventricular dysfunction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brát et al. (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: