Normothermic blood cardioplegia : alternative or adjunct ?

• Published in: The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery Vol. 107; no. 3; pp. 860 - 867
• Main Author: BUCKBERG, G. D
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Philadelphia, PA Elsevier 01.03.1994
• Subjects: Anesthesia; Anesthesia depending on type of surgery; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Biological and medical sciences; Blood; Heart Arrest, Induced - methods; Humans; Hypothermia, Induced; Medical sciences; Myocardial Reperfusion Injury - prevention & control; Temperature; Thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. Cardiopulmonary bypass; Vascular disease; Human; Cardioplegic solution; Normothermia; Ischemia; Surgery; Myocardium; Cardiovascular disease; Coronary heart disease; Myocardial disease; Protection; Induced cardiocirculatory arrest
• ISSN: 0022-5223; 1097-685X
• DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5223(94)70342-6

Normothermic blood cardioplegia was developed originally to be used during cardioplegic induction and reperfusion as an adjunct for enhancing metabolic reversal of biochemical alterations occurring before, during, and after total myocardial ischemia. This adjunct was introduced clinically after extensive experimental testing. By contrast, continuous normothermic blood cardioplegia without hypothermia was introduced clinically without a scientific infrastructure and has generated great interest because of its simplicity and encouraging early results, but has caused substantial confusion. This report is written to (1) clarify the role of normothermic blood cardioplegia as an adjunct to available hypothermic and antegrade and retrograde methods of myocardial protection, rather than as an alternative to them, (2) call attention to the misconception that continuous coronary perfusion avoids ischemia inasmuch as "unintentional ischemia" may occur despite continuous coronary perfusion, (3) identify theoretic and practical limitations of warm continuous retrograde blood cardioplegia exposed by testing after its clinical introduction, (4) enumerate the unanswered questions posed after clinical use of this method, and (5) focus on the self-imposed inflexibility created by adoption of adversarial positions in regard to cardioprotective strategies that impedes our ability to combine, rationally, the spectrum of approaches to myocardial protection that have evolved from the recognized limitations of individual methods.