Custodiol versus Plegisol: A phase 3 multicentre myocardial protection study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While considered simple and effective, crystalloid antegrade cardioplegia solutions have had few prospective multicentre comparison trials. METHODS: A commercial intracellular-type histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate (HTK) cardioplegia solution (Custodiol HTK; Köhler Chemie GmbH, Germany) designed for 4 h of protection after a single administration was compared with a standard extracellular multidose product (Plegisol [PL]; Hospira Inc, USA) in an open-label, randomized, prospective seven-institution trial. A total of 136 isolated coronary bypass patients were randomly assigned into two groups and stratified by ejection fraction into categories of 40% or greater (n=118) and 20% to 39% (n=18). RESULTS: The mean age of the study cohort was 62 years, of which 94% were men. Seventy per cent of patients had Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III angina and 75% had three-vessel disease anatomy. Cross-clamp times were nearly identical for patients in both cardioplegia groups; however, defibrillation was needed less often for patients who were treated with HTK (64% versus 91%, P<0.01). Hospital and intensive care unit stays, creatine kinase isoenzyme MB curves, cardiac outputs, inotrope levels, and deaths or serious adverse events (PL=13, HTK=14) were very similar between groups. Logistic regression showed that myocardial infarction or possible treatment-related adverse events were associated with high cardiac troponin I (cTn-I) levels 6 h after the procedure (P=0.001), and HTK treatment (OR 3.5, P=0.01). The primary study end point (6 h post-ischemia cTn-I) favoured PL (16.7±13.2 μg/L versus 20.3±13.5 μg/L, P=0.01). Patients who underwent circumflex grafting had higher cTn-I levels with HTK (P<0.001) and 48% required reinfusions due to cardiac warming. Longer intervals between doses correlated with high cTn-I levels (P=0.02). HTK provided prolonged protection with low cTn-I release (10 μg/L or less), although this occurred less frequently than with PL (17 versus 27 patients, P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: HTK caused more structural protein release and adverse events than PL, even when reinfusion was implemented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".