Trial reportBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery2022
Custodiol versus Blood Cardioplegia: Comparison of Myocardial Immunohistochemical Analysis and Clinical Outcomes.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing del Nido and St. Thomas II cardioplegia in a rat ischemia-reperfusion model: Histopathology, mitochondria, and TEM analysis.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2025Article
- Myocardial protection: comparing histological effects of single-dose cardioplegic solutions-study protocol for a secondary analysis of the CARDIOPLEGIA trial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCustodiol (histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate) and repetitive blood cardioplegia are the solutions for myocardial protection and cardiac arrest. In this study, we aimed to compare immunohistochemical analysis, clinical outcomes, and cardiac enzyme values of Custodiol and blood cardioplegia groups.
methodsThis was a randomized prospective study consisting of 2 groups and 20 patients, 10 patients for each group, who underwent mitral and mitral/tricuspid valve surgery. Group 1 was formed for Custodiol cardioplegia and group 2 for blood cardioplegia. Perioperative and postoperative cardiac events were recorded, cardiac enzymes were analyzed with intervals, and myocardial samples were taken for immunohistochemical analysis. Recorded data were statistically evaluated.
resultsThere was no significant difference for the Custodiol and blood cardioplegia groups in perioperative and postoperative cardiac performance and adverse events. Cardiac enzyme analysis showed no significant difference between groups. However, two parameters (eNOS, Bcl-2) were in favor of the Custodiol group in immunohistochemical studies. Custodiol performed better in cellular oxidative stress resistance and cellular viability.
conclusionClinical outcomes and cardiac enzyme analysis results were similar regarding myocardial protection. However, Custodiol performed better in the immunohistochemical analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.