Trial reportInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
Buckberg versus Del Nido in isolated aortic valve replacement: a prospective, two-centre, randomized trial.
Trial report in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perfusion Interval and Myocardial Injury in Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery: The Modifying Role of Aortic Cross-Clamp Duration.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparison of del Nido and blood cardioplegia on metabolic changes and acid-base balance in adult cardiac surgeries under cardiopulmonary bypass.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Cardioplegia Strategies in Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement: An Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Reply to Ignazio Condello et al.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- The Overlooked Factors: How Cardioplegia Delivery and Deairing May Shape Clinical Results.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInterest in Del Nido solution is increasing in adult cardiac surgery. This study compared Del Nido with Buckberg cardioplegia in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement.
methodsA prospective, two-centre, randomized trial was conducted from July 2019 to August 2023, with adult patients undergoing first-time isolated aortic valve replacement, and were randomized to receive Buckberg (n = 159) or Del Nido (n = 152) solution. Primary end-point was Creatine Kinase and ultrasensitive Troponin T postoperative peak level.
resultsA total of 311 patients were recruited. Total cardioplegia volume was higher in Del Nido group (1000 ml vs 374.5 ml, P < 0.001). No differences were observed in peak Creatine Kinase or Troponin T levels (422 vs 407 U/L and 282 vs 258 ng/L for Buckberg and Del Nido, respectively) or during postoperative days 1-5. After cross-clamp removal, patients in Del Nido group showed higher rates of spontaneous rhythm (66.7% vs 43.1%, P < 0.001) and less ventricular fibrillation requiring defibrillation (23.6% vs 49.7%, P < 0.001). Peak intraoperative glucose levels (128 mg/dl vs 198 mg/dl, P < 0.001) and insulin administration (18.1% vs 51.0%, P < 0.001) were lower in the Del Nido group. No other differences were found.
conclusionsNo differences between Del Nido and Buckberg solutions were detected. Del Nido presents better intraoperative glycaemic control, higher spontaneous rhythm, less ventricular fibrillation requiring defibrillation after cross-clamp removal, and more comfortable surgical workflow due to less re-dose interruptions. CLINICAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EU-CTR number: 2018-002701-59.
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.