scholarly journals Myocardial protection during aortic valve replacement

1981 ◽  
Vol 82 (6) ◽  
pp. 837-847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian L. Olin ◽  
Vollmer Bomfim ◽  
Rutger Bendz ◽  
Lennart Kaijser ◽  
Stellan J. Strom ◽  
...  
2006 ◽  
Vol 132 (2) ◽  
pp. 420-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Maltais ◽  
Ismail El-Hamamsy ◽  
Anique Ducharme ◽  
Michel Carrier ◽  
Michel Pellerin ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Youn Joung Cho ◽  
Dhong-Eun Jung ◽  
Karam Nam ◽  
Jinyoung Bae ◽  
Seohee Lee ◽  
...  

Abstract BackgroundTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) has been found to have cardioprotective effects. However, its effects on adult cardiac surgery patients remain unclear. We investigated the effects of TENS on myocardial protection in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass.MethodsThirty patients were randomized to receive TENS or sham in three different anesthetic states – pre-anesthesia, sevoflurane, or propofol (each n = 5). TENS was applied at the upper arm for 30 min. Sham treatment was provided without nerve stimulation. The primary outcome was the difference in myocardial infarct size following ischemia-reperfusion injury in rat hearts perfused with pre- and post-TENS dialysate from the patients using Langendorff perfusion system.ResultsThere were no differences in myocardial infarct size between pre- and post-treatment in any group (41.4 ± 4.3% vs. 36.7 ± 5.3%, 39.8 ± 7.3% vs. 27.8 ± 12.0%, and 41.6 ± 2.2% vs. 37.8 ± 7.6%; p = 0.080, 0.152, and 0.353 in the pre-anesthesia, sevoflurane, and propofol groups, respectively).ConclusionsTENS did not have a cardioprotective effect in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement surgery.Trial registrationThis study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03859115, on March 1, 2019).


2017 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose López-Menéndez ◽  
Javier Miguelena ◽  
Carlos Morales ◽  
Carmen L. Díaz ◽  
Francisco Callejo ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Raphael Hamad ◽  
Anthony Nguyen ◽  
Éric Laliberté ◽  
Denis Bouchard ◽  
Yoan Lamarche ◽  
...  

Objective del Nido solution (DNS) is a single-dose cardioplegia designed for pediatric use proposed to offer superior myocardial protection in adults. However, few data support this claim. We hypothesized that DNS and modified blood cardioplegia solution (BS) provide equivalent safety in combined adult valve surgery. Methods Between November 2014 and December 2015, 25 patients underwent primary aortic valve replacement and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with DNS. Outcomes were compared with 25 patients who underwent the same surgery with BS between September 2013 and August 2015. Results All preoperative characteristics, comorbidities, and number of CABG performed were similar between groups. One hospital death occurred in the BS group. Postoperative creatine kinase, MB isotype (16.7 ± 5.3 μg/L vs. 22.1 ± 8.9 μg/L, P = 0.011) and troponin T levels (260 ± 105.3 ng/L vs. 370.5 ±218.4 ng/L, P =0.028) were significantly lower in the DNS group. There was no difference in inotropic or vasoactive agent use ( P = 0.512). Cardiopulmonary bypass times (65.5 ± 12.5 min vs. 76.6 ± 19.1 min, P = 0.019) and cross-clamp times (55.6 ± 11.2 min vs. 64.3 ± 18.9 min, P = 0.05) were lower in the DNS group but total operating room times ( P = 0.198) were similar. Peak postoperative creatinine levels were similar in both groups ( P = 0.063). There was no difference in postoperative outcomes including acute renal failure ( P > 0.999), atrial fibrillation ( P = 0.773), acute respiratory failure ( P > 0.999), nor stroke or transient ischemic attack ( P > 0.999). Intensive care unit stay ( P = 0.213) and hospital stay ( P = 0.1) did not differ between groups. Conclusions The DNS can be used as an alternative to BS in adult concomitant aortic valve replacement + CABG surgery. This supports our hypothesis that in this specific setting, DNS provides comparable myocardial protection as BS, with possibly shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
M. S. Kamenskikh ◽  
M. A. Novikov ◽  
A. S. Vasil’ev ◽  
A. V. Zyryanova ◽  
M. S. Stolyarov ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document