ISCHEMIC MYOCARDIAL PROTECTION - COMPARISON OF NONOXYGENATED CRYSTALLOID, OXYGENATED CRYSTALLOID, AND OXYGENATED FLUOROCARBON CARDIOPLEGIC SOLUTIONS

  • 1 February 1988
    • journal article
    • research article
    • Vol. 95  (2) , 239-246
Abstract
This study was designed to compare myocardial protection with a nonoxygenated crystalloid solution, an oxygenated crystalloid solution, and an oxygenated fluorocarbon cardioplegic solution. Postischemic ventricular performance was studied in three equal (N = 7) groups of dogs subjected to 120 minutes of global ischemia induced at an average myocardial temperature of 18.5.degree. .+-. 1.4.degree. C (range 17.0.degree. to 21.0.degree. C). Left ventricular global and regional function was evaluated by sonomicrometry and micromanometers before ischemia and 45 and 60 minutes after ischemia. Stroke volume index, left ventricular pressure-minor external diameter loop area, percent shortening, first derivative of left ventricular pressure, mean velocity of circumferential fiber shortening, and the slope of the end-systolic pressure were used to evaluate myocardial contractility. In vitro oxygen content of the three cardioplegic solutions was measured at a mean injection temperature of 8.3.degree. .+-. 0.6.degree. C: 0.8 .+-. 0.1 vol% (nonoxygenated crystalloid cardioplegia), 3.2 .+-. 0.2 vol% (oxygenated crystalloid cardioplegia), and 6.2 .+-. 0.2 vol% (oxygenated fluorocarbon cardioplegia). Recovery of global and regional function was significantly (p < 0.05) better with both oxygenated solutions than with the nonoxygenated solution. Differences between the oxygenated crystalloid and fluorocarbon groups were not significant. We conclude: (1) Compared to nonoxygenated crystalloid cardioplegia, oxygenated crystalloid and oxygenated fluorocarbon cardioplegic solutions gave superior myocardial protection during 2 hours of ischemic arrest; (2) no difference was found in protective effects between an oxygenated crystalloid and an oxygenated fluorocarbon solution.