IntroductionMyocardial protection is essential for successful cardiac surgery, and the search for an ideal cardioplegic solution has continued since its beginning. In this context, Custodiol, del Nido and modified del Nido are single-dose cardioplegic solutions with good safety profiles and great relevance in modern surgical practice. While these solutions have all been evaluated for their impact on patient outcomes independently, limited research exists comparing them directly. Thus, the present study aims to examine the effects of these cardioplegic solutions on myocardial protection and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. The assessment of the increase in myocardial injury biomarkers in patients submitted to all treatment methods may be considered a major strength of our study.Methods and analysisThis is a clinical trial study protocol that will compare myocardial protection and clinical outcomes among three patient groups based on which cardioplegic solution was used. Patients will be randomised to receive del Nido (n=30), modified del Nido (n=30) or Custodiol (n=30). Myocardial injury biomarkers will be measured at the baseline and 2 hours, 12 hours and 24 hours after the cardiopulmonary bypass. Clinical outcomes will be assessed during the trans operative period and the intensive care unit stay, in addition to other haematological parameters.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol and its related documents were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, Brazil, registered under no. 4.029.545. The findings of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal in the related field.Trial registration numberRBR-7g5s66.
Objective: To assess the potential benefits of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MIAVR) compared with conventional AVR (CAVR) by examining short-term outcomes. Methods: A systematic search identified randomized trials comparing MIAVR with CAVR. To assess study limitations and quality of evidence, we used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and GRADE and performed random-effects meta-analysis. We used meta-regression and sensitivity analysis to explore reasons for diversity. Results: Thirteen studies (1,303 patients) were included. For the comparison of MIAVR and CAVR, the risk of bias was judged low or unclear and the quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. No significant difference was observed in mortality, stroke, acute kidney failure, infectious outcomes, cardiac events, intubation time, intensive care unit stay, reoperation for bleeding, and blood transfusions. Blood loss (mean difference [MD] = −130.58 mL, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −216.34 to −44.82, I2 = 89%) and hospital stay (MD = −0.93 days, 95% CI = −1.62 to −0.23, I2 = 81%) were lower with MIAVR. There were shorter aortic cross-clamp (MD = 5.99 min, 95% CI = 0.99 to 10.98, I2 = 93%) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times (MD = 7.75 min, 95% CI = 0.27 to 15.24, I2 = 94%) in the CAVR group. In meta-regression analysis, we found that age was the variable with the greatest influence on heterogeneity. Conclusions: MIAVR seems to be an excellent alternative to CAVR, reducing hospital stay and incidence of hemorrhagic events. Despite significantly greater aortic cross-clamp and CPB times with MIAVR, this did not translate into adverse effects, with no changes in the results found with CAVR.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.