Warm versus cold blood cardioplegia—Is there a difference?

Abstract

This experimental study sought to compare the effectiveness of warm blood cardioplegia versus cold blood cardioplegia in protecting areas of ischemic myocardium during urgent coronary revascularization. In 40 adult pigs, the second and third diagonal vessels were occluded with snares for 90 minutes. All animals were then placed on cardiopulmonary bypass and underwent 45 minutes of cardioplegic arrest followed by 3 hours of reperfusion during which time the coronary snares were released. During the period of cardioplegic arrest, 10 pigs received antegrade continuous warm blood cardioplegic solution (37 degrees C) at 100 ml/min; 10 animals received retrograde warm blood cardioplegic solution at 100 ml/min; 10 received intermittent, antegrade cold blood cardioplegic solution (4 degrees C), and 10 animals received intermittent, antegrade/retrograde cold blood cardioplegic solution. Hearts protected with antegrade warm blood cardioplegic solution had the lowest pH values in the area at risk (6.59 +/- 0.10 antegrade warm blood cardioplegia versus 6.80 +/- 0.10 retrograde warm blood cardioplegia versus 6.72 +/- 0.18 antegrade cold blood cardioplegia versus 6.85 +/- 0.15 antegrade/retrograde cold blood cardioplegia and the highest area of necrosis (42% +/- 3% antegrade warm blood cardioplegia versus 26% +/- 2% [p < 0.05 from antegrade warm blood cardioplegia] retrograde warm blood cardioplegia versus 31% +/- 2% [p < 0.05 from antegrade warm blood cardioplegia] antegrade cold blood cardioplegia versus 21% +/- 2% [p < 0.05 from antegrade warm blood cardioplegia] antegrade/retrograde cold blood cardioplegia). We conclude that in the presence of an acute coronary occlusion with ischemic myocardium, warm blood cardioplegic solution should be given in a continuous retrograde fashion and does not result in myocardial protection superior to the protection that can be achieved with antegrade/retrograde cold blood cardioplegic solution.