Abstract
Introduction
Cardiac arrest with cardioplegia is the most common and reliable method of myocardial protection in cardiac surgery, but there is no definite consensus on the use of different types of cardioplegia. Two of the commonly used types of cardioplegia are Bretschneider histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution (Custodiol) and conventional blood cardioplegia. In this study, Custodiol solution and conventional blood cardioplegia used in patients with type A aortic dissection who underwent supracoronary ascending aortic replacement were aimed to be compared in terms of postoperative results.
Methods
70 patients with type A aortic dissection who underwent supracoronary ascending aortic replacement in our clinic between January 2011 – October 2020 were included. Patients were divided into two groups, blood cardioplegia group (n = 48) and Custodiol group (n = 22) and they were compared regarding preoperative, perioperative and postoperative variables.
Results
There was no significant difference between cardiopulmonary bypass time and cross-clamp time (p = 0.17 and p = 0.16, respectively). Mechanical ventilator weaning time, intensive care unit stay and hospital stay were shorter in Custodiol group (p = 0.04,p = 0.03 and p = 0.05, respectively). While inotropic support need was higher in the blood cardioplegia group (p = 0.001), there was no significant difference in terms of mortality, arrhythmia, neurological complications and renal complications.
Conclusions
Our results show that Custodiol cardioplegia solution may be superior to blood cardioplegia in reducing mechanical ventilation weaning period, intensive care and hospital stay, and reducing the use of inotropic agents in patients with type A aortic dissection undergoing supracoronary ascending aorta replacement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.