Evidence-based medicine and myocardial protection — where is the evidence?

• Published in: Perfusion Vol. 30; no. 5; pp. 415 - 422
• Main Authors: Ferguson, ZG, Yarborough, DE, Jarvis, BL, Sistino, JJ
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01.07.2015; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Evidence-Based Medicine - methods; Heart Arrest, Induced - methods; Humans; Myocardium; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; systematic review; myocardial protection; cardioplegia
• DOI: 10.1177/0267659114551856
• ISSN: 0267-6591; 1477-111X

Objective: Myocardial protection with cardioplegia is an integral component of most cardiac surgical procedures, providing protection of the heart by limiting metabolic activity and increasing the myocardium’s capacity to withstand ischemia for prolonged periods of time. Cardioplegia has greatly affected the landscape of cardiothoracic surgery since its introduction in the 1960s, but, to this day, there continues to be a debate over what the ideal cardioplegic solution should be. The goal of this analysis is to describe current practices in cardioplegia and to point out the lack of quality human research and subsequent publications that prevent best practices from being utilized. Methods: This study is a systematic review of journal publications pertaining to the composition of commonly used cardioplegic solutions. Four main types of cardioplegia were assessed to give a narrower field of examination; specifically, microplegia, del Nido, Custodiol HTK, and 4:1 blood cardioplegia. Other combinations of cardioplegia, including St. Thomas’s Solution and the University of Wisconsin (UW) Solution, were considered when applicable according to the context of the publication being reviewed. Factors being assessed consisted of scientific validity, nature of the test subject (isolated organ vs. animal vs. human studies), experimental setup (retrospective trials vs. randomized clinical trials) and patient outcomes. Results: There are very few randomized clinical trials with human subjects comparing commonly used cardioplegic solutions. Numerous retrospective studies exist, but often show similar intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between the solutions. Some solutions, del Nido cardioplegia in particular, were found to have few or no significant human trials to back the rigor required in such a highly specialized field as cardiovascular surgery. A wide variation in the types of surgeries and primary outcomes were included in the publications, so it is difficult to perform an accurate systematic review of the topic. Conclusion: Uniform variables among different studies would be preferable for analysis of this topic; thus, it is the researchers’ recommendation that the collection of multicenter data be undertaken in order to more fully answer this research question. Comparative effectiveness studies to associate commonly used solutions are needed. Without this research, surgeon preference remains the primary determining factor for deciding which cardioplegic solution to use. Cardioplegia selection should rely more on higher scientific research, using evidenced-based medicine and ranking of clinical studies.