Comparison of Del Nido Cardioplegia with Blood Cardioplegia in Adult Combined Surgery

Abstract

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.

Keywords

del Nido cardioplegia Blood cardioplegia Aortic valve replacement Coronary artery bypass grafting Myocardial protection

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Follette

D.M.

, Steed

D.L.

, Foglia

Advantages of intermittent blood cardioplegia over intermittent ischemia during prolonged hypothermic aortic clamping. Circulation. 1978; 58: I200–I209.

Follette

D.M.

, Mulder

D.G.

, Maloney

J.V.

Advantages of blood cardioplegia over continuous coronary perfusion or intermittent ischemia. Experimental and clinical study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1978; 76: 604–619.

Follette

D.M.

, Fey

, Buckberg

G.D.

Reducing postischemic damage by temporary modification of reperfusate calcium, potassium, pH, and osmolarity. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1981; 82: 221–238.

O'Brien

J.D.

, Howlett

S.E.

, Burton

H.J.

Pediatric cardioplegia strategy results in enhanced calcium metabolism and lower serum troponin T. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 87: 1517–1523.

Charette

, Gerrah

, Quaegebeur

Single dose myocardial protection technique utilizing del Nido cardioplegia solution during congenital heart surgery procedures. Perfusion. 2012; 27: 98–103.

Harvey

, Shann

K.G.

, Fitzgerald

International pediatric perfusion practice: 2011 survey results. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2012; 44: 186–193.

O'Blenes

S.B.

, Friesen

C.H.

, Ali

Protecting the aged heart during cardiac surgery: the potential benefits of del Nido cardioplegia. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011; 141: 762–770.

Govindapillai

, Hua

, Rose

Protecting the aged heart during cardiac surgery: use of del Nido cardioplegia provides superior functional recovery in isolated hearts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013; 146: 940–948.

Govindapillai

, Hancock Friesen

, O'Blenes

S.B.

Protecting the aged heart during cardiac surgery: single-dose del Nido cardioplegia is superior to multidose del Nido cardioplegia in isolated rat hearts. Perfusion. 2015; 31: 1–8.

10.

Böning

, Rohrbach

, Kohlhepp

Differences in ischemic damage between young and old hearts—effects of blood cardioplegia. Exp Gerontol. 2015; 67: 3–8.

11.

Matte

G.S.

, del Nido

P.J.

History and use of del Nido cardioplegia solution at Boston Children's Hospital. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2012; 44: 98–103.

12.

Edelman

J.J.

, Seco

, Dunne

Custodiol for myocardial protection and preservation: a systematic review. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 2: 717–728.

13.

Kim

, Ball

, Grady

Use of del Nido cardioplegia for adult cardiac surgery at the Cleveland Clinic: perfusion implications. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2014; 46: 317–323.

14.

Mick

S.L.

, Robich

M.P.

, Houghtaling

P.L.

del Nido versus Buckberg cardioplegia in adult isolated valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015; 149: 626–634.

15.

Ferguson

, Yarborough

, Jarvis

Evidence-based medicine and myocardial protection—where is the evidence?

Perfusion. 2015; 30: 415–422.

16.

Valooran

G.J.

, Nair

S.K.

, Chandrasekharan

del Nido cardioplegia in adult cardiac surgery—scopes and concerns. Perfusion. 2016; 31: 6–14.

17.

Kotani

, Tweddell

, Gruber

Current cardioplegia practice in pediatric cardiac surgery: a North American multiinstitutional survey. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013; 96: 923–929.

18.

Tsukube

, McCully

J.D.

, Metz

K.R.

Amelioration of ischemic calcium overload correlates with high-energy phosphates in senescent myocardium. Am J Physiol. 1997; 273: 418–425.

19.

Lake

C.L.

, Kron

I.L.

, Mentzer

R.M.

Lidocaine enhances intraoperative ventricular defibrillation. Anesth Analg. 1986; 65: 337–340.

20.

Yerebakan

, Sorabella

R.A.

, Najjar

Del Nido Cardioplegia can be safely administered in high-risk coronary artery bypass grafting surgery after acute myocardial infarction: a propensity matched comparison. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014; 9: 141.

21.

Smigla

, Jaquiss

, Walczak

Assessing the safety of del Nido cardioplegia solution in adult congenital cases. Perfusion. 2014; 29: 554–558.

22.

Macario

What does one minute of operating room time cost?

J Clin Anesth. 2010; 22: 233–236.