ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Myocardial protection: comparing histological effects of single-dose cardioplegic solutions-study protocol for a secondary analysis of the CARDIOPLEGIA trial.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07426237 (Effect of the Addition of Adenosine on Myocardial Protection During Cardiopulmonary Bypass), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Effect of the Addition of Adenosine on Myocardial Protection During Cardiopulmonary Bypass: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing del Nido and St. Thomas II cardioplegia in a rat ischemia-reperfusion model: Histopathology, mitochondria, and TEM analysis.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2025Article
- Blood cardioplegia or custodiol for myocardial protection during valvular or aortic surgery: a propensity score adjusted comparison.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Myocardial protection is crucial for successful cardiac surgery, as it prevents heart muscle damage that can occur during the procedure. Prolonged hypoxia without proper protection can lead to adenosine triphosphate consumption, microvilli loss, blister formation, and edema. Custodiol, del Nido, and modified del Nido are single-dose cardioplegic solutions with proven safety and significance in modern surgery. While each has been independently assessed for patient outcomes, limited research directly compares them. This study aims to compare their myocardial protection using histological analysis. Methods: In a double-blind clinical trial, at least 90 patients will be randomly assigned to receive one of the three cardioplegic solutions. Myocardial biopsies will be collected before cardiopulmonary bypass and 15 minutes after reperfusion. The surgical, anesthetic and perfusion techniques will be the same for all patients, following the Institution's standard protocols. Discussion: The ideal cardioplegic solution does not exist, and its selection remains challenging for surgeons. In modern surgical practice, understanding the behavior of these solutions and the ischemic tissue damage caused during induced cardiac arrest allows for safer surgical procedures. The results of this clinical trial can help in understanding the behavior of cardioplegic solutions and their tissue effects. Thus, by selecting the best cardioplegic solution, ischemic damage can be minimized, enhancing the effectiveness of this essential technique in cardiac procedures. The study may aid in implementing clinical protocols in several institutions, aiming to choose the solution with a superior myocardial protection profile, increasing safety, and reducing expenses. Trial Registration: Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBEC, http://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/): RBR-997tqhh. Registered: January 26th, 2022.
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.