J James B Edelman1, Michael Seco2, Ben Dunne3, Shannon J Matzelle4, Michelle Murphy4, Pragnesh Joshi5, Tristan D Yan6, Michael K Wilson7, Paul G Bannon6, Michael P Vallely7, Jurgen Passage8. 1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Australia; ; The Baird Institute; Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 2. The Baird Institute; Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; 3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia; 4. Department of Anaesthesia, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Australia; 5. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Australia; 6. The Baird Institute; Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; ; Cardiothoracic Surgical Unit, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia; 7. The Baird Institute; Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; ; Cardiothoracic Surgical Unit, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia; ; Australian School of Advanced Medicine, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia; 8. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Nedlands, Australia; ; Notre Dame Medical School, Fremantle, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Custodiol cardioplegia is attractive for minimally invasive cardiac surgery, as a single dose provides a long period of myocardial protection. Despite widespread use in Europe, there is little data confirming its efficacy compared with conventional (blood or crystalloid) cardioplegia. There is similar enthusiasm for its use in organ preservation for transplant, but also a lack of data. This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence for the efficacy of Custodiol in myocardial protection and as a preservation solution in heart transplant. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed of six databases from inception to October 2013. Reviewers independently identified studies that compared Custodiol with conventional cardioplegia (blood or extracellular crystalloid) in adult patients for meta-analysis; large case series that reported results using Custodiol were analyzed. Next, we identified studies that compared Custodiol with other organ preservation solutions for organ preservation in heart transplant. RESULTS: Fourteen studies compared Custodiol with conventional cardioplegia for myocardial protection in adult cardiac surgery. No difference was identified in mortality; there was a trend for increased incidence of ventricular fibrillation in the Custodiol group that did not reach statistical significance. No difference was identified in studies that compared Custodiol with other solutions for heart transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread clinical use, the evidence supporting the superiority of Custodiol over other solutions for myocardial protection or organ preservation is limited. Large randomised trials are required.
INTRODUCTION:Custodiol cardioplegia is attractive for minimally invasive cardiac surgery, as a single dose provides a long period of myocardial protection. Despite widespread use in Europe, there is little data confirming its efficacy compared with conventional (blood or crystalloid) cardioplegia. There is similar enthusiasm for its use in organ preservation for transplant, but also a lack of data. This systematic review aimed to assess the evidence for the efficacy of Custodiol in myocardial protection and as a preservation solution in heart transplant. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed of six databases from inception to October 2013. Reviewers independently identified studies that compared Custodiol with conventional cardioplegia (blood or extracellular crystalloid) in adult patients for meta-analysis; large case series that reported results using Custodiol were analyzed. Next, we identified studies that compared Custodiol with other organ preservation solutions for organ preservation in heart transplant. RESULTS: Fourteen studies compared Custodiol with conventional cardioplegia for myocardial protection in adult cardiac surgery. No difference was identified in mortality; there was a trend for increased incidence of ventricular fibrillation in the Custodiol group that did not reach statistical significance. No difference was identified in studies that compared Custodiol with other solutions for heart transplant. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread clinical use, the evidence supporting the superiority of Custodiol over other solutions for myocardial protection or organ preservation is limited. Large randomised trials are required.
Authors: Todd L Demmy; J Ernesto Molina; Herb B Ward; Michael E Gorton; Nicholas T Kouchoukos; Richard A Schmaltz; Hani Shennib Journal: Int J Angiol Date: 2008
Authors: H Reichenspurner; C Russ; P Uberfuhr; G Nollert; A Schlüter; B Reichart; W P Klövekorn; S Schüler; R Hetzer; W Brett Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 1993 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Helison Pereira do Carmo; Karla Reichert; Daniela Diógenes de Carvalho; Lindemberg da Mota Silveira-Filho; Karlos Vilarinho; Pedro Oliveira; Orlando Petrucci Journal: Braz J Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018 May-Jun
Authors: Daniel A Lerman; Matilde Otero-Losada; Kiddy Ume; Pablo A Salgado; Sai Prasad; Kelvin Lim; Bruno Péault; Nasri Alotti Journal: J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) Date: 2017-05-26 Impact factor: 1.888