Cardioplegia Application with A Hand-Squeezed Cardioplegia Bag. Is It Safe?
Cardioplegia application with hand-squeeze bag
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.3933Keywords:
Cardioplegic administration and pressure, myocardial protection, coronary artery bypass graftingAbstract
Objectives: Cardioplegia solutions have a role not only in arresting the heart but also in protecting the myocardium from ischemia. While antegrade cardioplegia is given by the heart-lung machine in many centers, it is given by a hand-squeezed bag in very few centers. The pressure of cardioplegia given antegrade from the heart-lung machine is certain (60-90 mmHg). The pressure applied in the cardioplegia method, which is given antegrade with a hand-squeezed bag, is uncertain and variable. We compared the antegrade cardioplegia method applied with a hand-squeezed bag with the antegrade cardioplegia method applied with a roller pump from the heart-lung machine in terms of protecting the myocardium from ischemia.
Methods: Seventy-six patients who did not have an acute myocardial infarction, had normal preoperative cardiac marker (troponin and CK-MB) values, did not undergo redo open heart surgery, had an ejection fraction of 50% and above, and underwent elective two or three-vessel isolated coronary artery bypass surgery were evaluated. While tepid (30-32°C) blood cardioplegia was administered antegrade to 33 patients (Group A) with a hand-squeezed bag, the other 34 patients (Group B) received tepid (30-32°C) antegrade blood cardioplegia from the heart-lung machine. The perioperative and postoperative data of the patients were recorded and compared. To evaluate myocardial damage, postoperative cardiac markers and echocardiography data were evaluated and compared at the fourth hour after the cross-clamp was removed in both groups.
Results: When evaluated in terms of preoperative demographic data, preoperative mean EF values and intraoperative data, there was no statistical difference between both groups. When we evaluated in terms of myocardial protection, the mean TnT level was 4.31 ± 1.95 at the 4th hour in Group A and 3.91 ± 1.69 in Group B. Mean 4th hour CK-MB level was 40.84 ± 9.07 in Group A and 38.56 ± 8.07 in Group B. Mean change in EF (%) was -4.09 ± 4.41 in Group A and 3.53 ± 4.53 in Group B. In line with the current data when we evaluated in terms of myocardial protection, we found that there is no statistical difference between the two groups (P = 0.373; P = 0.158; P = 0.523). There was no statistical difference between both groups, in terms of postoperative arrhythmias. None of the patients died, and no patients required an intra-aortic balloon pump.
Results: As a result of our study, cardioplegia administration with a certain constant pressure from the roller pump and hand-squeezed bag with uncertain pressure does not make a difference, in terms of myocardial protection. We think that the content and amount of cardioplegia and the preferred time for repeated cardioplegia applications are more important for the protection of the myocardium.
Methods: 76 patients who did not have an acute myocardial infarction, had normal preoperative cardiac marker (troponin and CK-MB) values, did not undergo redo open heart surgery, had an ejection fraction of 50% and above, and underwent elective two or three-vessel isolated coronary artery bypass surgery were evaluated. While tepid(30-32 ° C) blood cardioplegia was administered antegrade to 33 patients(Group A) with a hand-squeezed bag, the other 34 patients(Group B) received tepid(30-32 °C) antegrade blood cardioplegia from the heart-lung machine. The perioperative and postoperative data of the patients were recorded and compared. To evaluate myocardial damage, postoperative cardiac markers and echocardiography data were evaluated and compared at the fourth hour after the cross-clamp was removed in both groups.
Results: When evaluated in terms of preoperative demographic data, preoperative mean EF values and intraoperative data there was no statistical difference between both groups. When we evaluated in terms of myocardial protection, the mean TnT level was 4.31 ± 1.95 at the 4th hour in group A and 3.91 ± 1.69 in group B. Mean 4th hour CK-MB level was 40.84 ± 9.07 in group A and 38.56 ± 8.07 in group B. Mean change in EF (%) was -4.09 ± 4.41 in group A and 3.53 ± 4.53 in group B. In line with the current data when we evaluated in terms of myocardial protection; we found that there is no statistical difference between the two groups (p = 0.373; p = 0.158; p = 0.523). There was no statistical difference between both groups in terms of postoperative arrhythmia's. None of the patients died and none of the patients required an intra-aortic balloon pump.
References
Abah U, Garfjeld Roberts P, Ishaq M, D Silva R. 2012. Is cold or warm blood cardioplegia superior for myocardial protection? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 14(6): 848-55.
Beyesdorf F MD, Allen BS, Bukcberg GD. 1999. Myocardial protection with integrated blood cardioplegia. In: Franco KL, Verrior ED. Editors. Advanced therapy in cardiac surgery, Hamilton: B C Decker. pp: 38-50.
Buckberg GD. 1987. Strategies and logic of cardioplegic delivery to prevent, avoid, and reverse ischemic and reperfusion damage, J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 93(1):127-39.
Buckberg GD, Athanasuleas CL. 2016. Cardioplegia: solutions or strategies? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 50(5):787–91.
Calafiore AM, Teodori G, Mezzetti A, Bosco G, Verna AM, Di Giammarco G, et al. 1995. Intermittent antegrade warm blood cardioplegia, Ann Thorac Surg. 59(2):398–402.
Candilio L, et al. 2014. A retrospective analysis of myocardial preservation techniques during coronary artery bypass graft surgery: are we protecting the heart? J Cardiothorac Surg. 9:184.
Chambers DJ. 2003. Mechanisms and alternative methods of achieving cardiac arrest. Ann Thorac Surg. 75(2):661–6.
Fan Y, Zhang AM, Xiao YB, Weng YG, Hetzer R. 2010. Warm versus cold cardioplegia for heart surgery. a meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 37(4): 912-9.
Foglia RP, Steed DL, Follette DM, DeLand E, Buckberg GD. 1979. Iatrogenic myocardial edema with potassium cardioplegia. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 78(2):217-2.
Frederick L, Grover, FL, Fewel JG, Ghidoni JJ, Bennett EV, Trinkle JK. 2015. Comparison of Roller Pump versus Pressurized Bag Administration of Potassium Cardioplegic Solution. J Extra Corpor Technol. 47(4):209-16.
Grover FL, Fewel JG, Ghidoni JJ, Bennett EV,Trinkle JK. 1982. Roller pump versus pressurized bag for cardioplegia. Ann Thorac Surg. 34(3):278-86.
Hayashida N, Ikonomidis JS, Weisel RD, Shirai T, Ivanov J, Carson SM, et al. 1994. The optimal cardioplegic temperature. Ann Thorac Surg. 58(4):961-71.
Kirali K. 2006. Which application, complex or mini cardioplegia?/Cardioplegia by minicardioplegia technique, Anadolu Kardiyol Derg. 6(3):289-91.
Melrose DG, Dreyer B, Bentall HH, Baker MA. 1955. Elective cardiac arrest, Lancet. 266(2):21–3.
Robertson JM Buckberg GD, Vinten-Johansen J John M. Leaf CD. 1983. Cardioplegic delivery beyond coronary stenosis: the superiority of blood cardioplegia over asanguineous cardioplegia. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 86(1): 80-6.
Shahian DM. 1985. Concepts and Techniques of Myocardial Protection for Adult Open Heart Surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 65(2):323-46.
Westaby S. 1997. Foundations of Cardiac Surgery. In: Westaby S ed.; Landmarks in Cardiac Surgery. Oxford: Isis Medical Media. 684.
Yilik L, Ozsoyler I, Yakut N, Emrecan B, Yasa H, Calli AO, et al. 2004. Passive Infusion A Simple Delivery Method for Retrograde Cardioplegia. Tex Heart Inst J. 31(4):392-7.
