Trial reportThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2024
Comparison of routine del Nido cardioplegia vs two types of modified del Nido cardioplegias for myocardial protection among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgeries: A randomized double-blind clinical trial.
Trial report in The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Alternative Base Solutions for del Nido Cardioplegia: Composition, Rationale, and Clinical Evidence.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Comparing del Nido and St. Thomas II cardioplegia in a rat ischemia-reperfusion model: Histopathology, mitochondria, and TEM analysis.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2025Article
- Publishing challenges for perfusionists whose first language is not English.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 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
backgroundThe del Nido cardioplegia solution is a widely used method for myocardial protection in various settings. However, there is limited evidence of its effectiveness in adult cardiac surgery, and the baseline solution, Plasma Lyte A, is not readily available, leading to the use of alternative baseline solutions. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of routine del Nido cardioplegia in adult cardiac surgery and the impact of different baseline solutions on myocardial protection and other perioperative outcomes.
methodsThis study was a prospective, double-blind randomized parallel group clinical trial conducted at a single tertiary care hospital in Iran. A total of 187 adult patients were evaluated for eligibility, of which 120 met the inclusion criteria for elective isolated CABG surgery. The patients were randomly assigned to three groups, with each group consisting of 40 patients. The control group received a normal saline-based routine del Nido cardioplegia, Intervention Group A received Ringer lactate-based del Nido cardioplegia, and Intervention Group B received plain Ringer-based del Nido cardioplegia. The levels of Creatine Kinase-MB (CK-MB), Troponin T, Troponin I, and lactate were primarily assessed at four different times: after anesthesia induction (Baseline), 2 h, 12 h, and 24 h.
resultsPreoperative demographic and clinical characteristics were the same among groups with insignificant differences (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference among groups based on CK-MB, Troponin T, Troponin I, and lactate levels (p = 0.078, 0.143, 0.311, and 0.129 respectively). However, there was a significant difference in the time effect of Troponin T and Lactate (p = 0.034, p = <0.001).
conclusionNormal saline, Ringer lactate, and plain Ringer provide comparable myocardial protection in adult-isolated CABG surgery with modified del Nido cardioplegia. Larger studies are needed to identify the best alternative to Plasma Lyte A while maintaining del Nido cardioplegia as the control.
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.