Comparison of lactated Ringer's solution and Plasma-Lyte A as a base solution for del Nido cardioplegia: a prospective randomized trial

Abstract OBJECTIVES The use of del Nido cardioplegia has been increasing in popularity for adult cardiac surgery. However, the base solution, Plasma-Lyte A, is not always available in many countries. This prospective randomized controlled trial evaluated myocardial preservation and clinical outcomes...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery 2024-03, Vol.65 (3)
Hauptverfasser: Kantathut, Narongrit, Krathong, Pimchanok, Khajarern, Siam, Leelayana, Parinya, Cherntanomwong, Piya
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract OBJECTIVES The use of del Nido cardioplegia has been increasing in popularity for adult cardiac surgery. However, the base solution, Plasma-Lyte A, is not always available in many countries. This prospective randomized controlled trial evaluated myocardial preservation and clinical outcomes when using lactated Ringer's solution (LRS) compared to Plasma-Lyte A as a base solution for del Nido cardioplegia. METHODS Adult patients undergoing first-time elective cardiac surgery for acquired heart disease, including isolated coronary artery bypass grafting, isolated valve surgery, combined valve surgery or concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting and valve surgery were randomized to receive either LRS (n = 100) or Plasma-Lyte A (n = 100). RESULTS There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of age, comorbidities, Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score and type of procedures. The primary outcome, postoperative troponin-T at 24 h, was similar in both groups (0.482 vs 0.524 ng/ml; P = 0.464). Other cardiac markers were also similar at all time points. The LRS group had a lower pH (7.228 vs 7.246; P = 0.005) and higher calcium levels (0.908 vs 0.358 mmol/l; P 
ISSN:1873-734X
1873-734X
DOI:10.1093/ejcts/ezae018