The Importance of Myocardial Protection in Combined Aortic Valve Replacement and Myocardial Revascularization

Abstract

To determine the importance of different methods of myocardial protection for combined aortic valve replacement and coronary revascularization, we analyzed the records of 82 consecutive patients who underwent the combined procedure between 1973 and 1978. Sixty-three (77%) had angina and 63 (77%) were in New York Heart Association Functional Class III or IV. Moderate to severe left ventricular impairment was present in 59%, and the mean number of diseased vessels was 1.9 per patient. Group I consisted of 18 patients with intermittent ischemia, almost all of whom had operation between 1973 and 1976. Group IIa consisted of 24 patients operated on between 1973 and December, 1976, with coronary perfusion, and Group IIb had 18 patients in whom a similar technique was used in 1977 and 1978. Group III consisted of 22 patients operated on in 1977 and 1978 in whom cold chemical cardioplegia was used. The early mortality (<30 days) for Group I was 50% and for Group IIa 29%. There were no deaths in Group IIb and Group III. The incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction was 21% in Group I, 6% in Group IIa, 11% in Group IIb, and zero in Group III. The incidence of cardiogenic shock requiring prolonged inotropic support and intraaortic balloon counterpulsation was significantly less in Group III (9%) than in Group IIb (50%) ( p < 0.05). If other manifestations of myocardial injury, such as perioperative infarction and cardiogenic shock requiring intraaortic balloon counterpulsation or inotropic support, are taken into consideration, cold chemical cardioplegia appears to provide better myocardial protection than coronary perfusion of the fibrillating heart.