Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery using single dose antegrade Custodiol cardioplegia.

OBJECTIVE: Our unit began a minimally invasive mitral surgery (MIMS) program utilising antegrade Custodiol solution as the sole cardioplegia. The aim of this paper is to report our results of this program. PATIENTS/METHODS: Early clinical outcomes were identified and assessed for the first consecutive 100 MIMS patients with comparisons made to a historical group operated via a sternotomy (n=113). The efficacy of myocardial protection was assessed using surrogate outcomes of myocardial protection with serial sodium concentrations also analysed. RESULTS: Six hours postoperatively 12 patients required inotropic support. Peak troponin-I in the first 24 hours was 5.1 (0.8-40 µg/L [median(range)]. Sodium levels decreased following administration of Custodiol but by six hours postoperatively the sodium had returned to greater than 130 mmol/L in all but five patients. Blood transfusion was smaller in the MIMS versus historical group (RBC 17% vs. 65%). MIMS patients had a shorter duration of ventilation, hospital stay and one-year mortality rate (0%). CONCLUSIONS: In this series of patients undergoing MIMS, single dose antegrade Custodiol offers satisfactory and safe myocardial protection. Early clinical outcomes were also satisfactory. Whilst our findings are observational, they nevertheless support the use of this less invasive approach to mitral surgery using single dose Custodiol for myocardial protection.

Custodiol for myocardial protection and preservation: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Custodiol cardioplegia is attractive for minimally invasive cardiac surgery, as a single dose provides a long period of myocardial protection. Despite widespread use in Europe, there is little data confirming its efficacy compared with conventional (blood or crystalloid) cardioplegia. There is similar enthusiasm for its use in organ preservation for transplant, but also a lack of data. This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence for the efficacy of Custodiol in myocardial protection and as a preservation solution in heart transplant. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed of six databases from inception to October 2013. Reviewers independently identified studies that compared Custodiol with conventional cardioplegia (blood or extracellular crystalloid) in adult patients for meta-analysis; large case series that reported results using Custodiol were analyzed. Next, we identified studies that compared Custodiol with other organ preservation solutions for organ preservation in heart transplant. RESULTS: Fourteen studies compared Custodiol with conventional cardioplegia for myocardial protection in adult cardiac surgery. No difference was identified in mortality; there was a trend for increased incidence of ventricular fibrillation in the Custodiol group that did not reach statistical significance. No difference was identified in studies that compared Custodiol with other solutions for heart transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread clinical use, the evidence supporting the superiority of Custodiol over other solutions for myocardial protection or organ preservation is limited. Large randomised trials are required.