• Ann. Thorac. Surg. · Oct 1998

    The importance of cardioplegic infusion pressure in neonatal myocardial protection.

    • M Kronon, K S Bolling, B S Allen, A O Halldorsson, T Wang, and S Rahman.
    • Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, 60612-7238, USA.
    • Ann. Thorac. Surg. 1998 Oct 1;66(4):1358-64.

    BackgroundCardioplegia infusion pressure is usually not directly monitored during neonatal heart operations. We hypothesize that the immature newborn heart may be damaged by even moderate elevation of cardioplegic infusion pressure, which in the absence of direct aortic monitoring may occur without the surgeon's knowledge.MethodsTwenty neonatal piglets received cardiopulmonary bypass and the heart was protected for 70 minutes with multidose blood cardioplegia infused at an aortic root pressure of 30 to 50 mm Hg (low pressure) or 80 to 100 mm Hg (high pressure). Group 1 (n = 5, low pressure), and group 2 (n = 5, high pressure) were uninjured (nonhypoxic) hearts. Group 3 (n = 5, low pressure) and group 4 (n = 5, high pressure) first underwent 60 minutes of ventilator hypoxia (FiO2 8% to 10%) before initiating cardiopulmonary bypass to produce a clinically relevant hypoxic stress before cardiac arrest. Function was assessed using pressure volume loops (expressed as a percentage of control), and coronary vascular resistance was measured with each cardioplegic infusion.ResultsIn nonhypoxic (uninjured) hearts (groups 1 and 2) cardioplegic infusion pressure did not significantly affect systolic function (end systolic elastance, 104% versus 96%), preload recruitable stroke work (102% versus 96%) diastolic compliance (152% versus 156%), or coronary vascular resistance but did raise myocardial water (78.9% versus 80.1%; p < 0.01). Conversely, if the cardioplegic solution was infused at even a slightly higher pressure in hypoxic hearts (group 4), there was deterioration of systolic function (end systolic elastance, 28% versus 106%) (p < 0.001) and preload recruitable stroke work (31% versus 103%; p < 0.001), rise in diastolic stiffness (274% versus 153%; p < 0.001), greater myocardial edema (80.5% versus 79.6%), and marked increase in coronary vascular resistance (p < 0.001) compared to hypoxic hearts given cardioplegia at low infusion pressures (group 3), which preserved function.ConclusionsHypoxic neonatal hearts are very sensitive to cardioplegic infusion pressures, such that even moderate elevations cause significant damage resulting in myocardial depression and vascular dysfunction. This damage is avoided by using low infusion pressures. Because small differences in infusion pressure may be difficult to determine without a direct aortic measurement, we believe it is imperative that surgeons directly monitor cardioplegia infusion pressure, especially in cyanotic patients.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.