A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of del Nido Versus Conventional Cardioplegia in Adult Cardiac Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Del Nido cardioplegia (DC) has been used extensively in pediatric cardiac surgery but the efficacy and safety in adults remains uncertain. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing DC and blood cardioplegia (BC) in our primary endpoint of 30-day or in-hospital mortality as well as other efficacy and safety endpoints. METHODS: Both MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1996 to 2017 for studies comparing DC and BC. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators and aggregated in a random effects model. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial (n = 89), 7 adjusted (n = 1,104), and 5 unadjusted observational studies (n = 717) were included. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality between DC and BC (relative risk:0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22, 2.07; P = 0.49). DC reduced cardioplegia volume requirements (mean difference [MD]:-1.1 L, 95% CI, -1.6, -0.6; P < 0.0001), aortic cross-clamp time (MD: -8 minutes, 95% CI, -12, -3; P = 0.0004), and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times (MD: -8 minutes, 95% CI, -14, -3; P = 0.03). DC reduced troponin release (standardized MD: -0.3, 95% CI, -0.5, -0.1; P = 0.001). In-hospital outcomes of stroke, atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury/dialysis, low cardiac output state, blood transfusion, reoperation rate, postoperative left ventricular EF, intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital LOS were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: DC is a safe alternative to BC in routine adult cardiac surgery. Its use is associated with reduction in CPB and aortic cross-clamp times and may potentially offer improved myocardial protection.

Remote ischaemic preconditioning in coronary artery bypass surgery: a meta-analysis.

AIM: Randomised trials exploring remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery have yielded conflicting data regarding potential cardiovascular and renal protection, and are individually flawed by small sample size. METHODS: Three investigators independently searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases to identify randomised trials testing RIPC in patients undergoing CABG. RESULTS: Nine studies with 704 patients were included. Standardised mean difference of troponin I and T release showed a significant decrease (-0.36 (95% CI -0.62 to -0.09)). This difference held true after excluding the trials with cross-clamp fibrillation, the study with off-pump CABG and studies using a flurane as anaesthetic agent (-0.41 (95% CI -0.69 to -0.12), -0.38 (95% CI -0.70 to -0.07) and -0.37 (95% CI -0.63 to -0.12), respectively). A similar trend was also obtained for patients with multivessel disease (-0.41 (95% CI -0.73 to -0.08)). The trials evaluating postoperative creatinine reported a non-significant reduction (0.02 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.13)). Moreover, the length of in-hospital stay was not influenced by the kind of treatment (weighted mean difference 0.27 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.79)). CONCLUSION: RIPC reduced the release of troponin in patients undergoing CABG. Larger randomised trials are needed to clarify the presence of a causal relationship between RIPC-induced troponin release and clinical adverse events.

Remote ischemic preconditioning in human coronary artery bypass surgery: from promise to disappointment?

BACKGROUND: We assessed whether remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) improves myocardial, renal, and lung protection after on-pump coronary surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a single-center, prospective, randomized (1:1), placebo-controlled trial. Patients, investigators, anesthetists, surgeons, and critical care teams were blinded to group allocation. Subjects received RIPC (or placebo) stimuli (×3 upper limb (or dummy arm), 5-minute cycles of 200 mm Hg cuff inflation/deflation) before aortic clamping. Anesthesia, perfusion, cardioplegia, and surgical techniques were standardized. The primary end point was 48-hour area under the curve (AUC) troponin T (cTnT) release. Secondary end points were 6-hour and peak cTnT, ECG changes, cardiac index, inotrope and vasoconstrictor use, renal dysfunction, and lung injury. Hospital survival was 99.4%. Comparing placebo and RIPC, median (interquartile range) AUC 48-hour cTnT (ng/mL(-1)/48 h(-1)); 28 (19, 39) versus 30 (22, 38), 6-hour cTnT (ng/mL(-1)); 0.93(0.59, 1.35) versus 1.01(0.72, 1.43), peak cTnT (ng/mL(-1)); 1.02 (0.74, 1.44) versus 1.04 (0.78, 1.51), de novo left bundle-branch block (4% versus 0%) and Q waves (5.3% versus 5.5%), serial cardiac indices, intraaortic balloon pump usage (8.5% versus 7.5%), inotrope (39% versus 50%) and vasoconstrictor usage (66% versus 64%) were not different. Dialysis requirement (1.2% versus 3.8%), peak creatinine (median [interquartile range], 1.2 mg/dL(-1) (1.1, 1.4) versus 1.2 (1.0, 1.4)), and AUC urinary albumin-creatinine ratios 69 (40, 112) versus 58 (32, 85) were not different. Intubation times; median (interquartile range), 937 minutes(766, 1402) versus 895(675, 1180), 6-hour; 278 (210, 338) versus 270 (218, 323) and 12-hour pO(2):FiO(2) ratios 255 (195, 323) versus 263 (210, 308) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to prior smaller studies, RIPC did not reduce troponin release, improve hemodynamics, or enhance renal or lung protection. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.ukcrn.org.uk. Unique identifier: 4659.