Normothermic blood polarizing versus depolarizing cardioplegia in a porcine model of cardiopulmonary bypass
Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, ISSN: 1569-9285, Vol: 35, Issue: 1
2022
- 2Citations
- 7Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations2
- Citation Indexes2
- Captures7
- Readers7
Article Description
OBJECTIVES: We have previously demonstrated beneficial cardiac protection with hypothermic polarizing cardioplegia compared to a hyperkalemic depolarizing cardioplegia. In this study, a porcine model of cardiopulmonary bypass was used to compare the protective effects of normothermic blood-based polarizing and depolarizing cardioplegia during cardiac arrest. METHODS: Thirteen pigs were randomized to receive either normothermic polarizing (n = 8) or depolarizing (n = 5) blood-based cardioplegia. After initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass, normothermic arrest (34°C, 60 min) was followed by 60 min of on-pump and 90 min of off-pump reperfusion. Primary outcome was myocardial injury measured as arterial myocardial creatine kinase concentration. Secondary outcome was haemodynamic function and the energy state of the hearts. RESULTS: During reperfusion, release of myocardial creatine kinase was comparable between groups (P = 0.36). In addition, most haemodynamic parameters showed comparable results between groups, but stroke volume (P = 0.03) was significantly lower in the polarizing group. Adenosine triphosphate levels were significantly (18.41 ± 3.86 vs 22.97 ± 2.73 nmol/mg; P = 0.03) lower in polarizing hearts, and the requirement for noradrenaline administration (P = 0.002) and temporary pacing (6 vs 0; P = 0.02) during reperfusion were significantly higher in polarizing hearts. CONCLUSIONS: Under normothermic conditions, polarizing blood cardioplegia was associated with similar myocardial injury to depolarizing blood cardioplegia. Reduced haemodynamic and metabolic outcome and a higher need for temporary pacing with polarized arrest may be associated with the blood-based dilution of this solution.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85132131876&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivac152; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35640544; https://academic.oup.com/icvts/article/doi/10.1093/icvts/ivac152/6595032; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivac152; https://academic.oup.com/icvts/article/35/1/ivac152/6595032
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know