Protecting the aged heart during cardiac surgery: single-dose del Nido cardioplegia is superior to multi-dose del Nido cardioplegia in isolated rat hearts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aged hearts are particularly vulnerable to reperfusion injury. We recently showed that single-dose del Nido cardioplegia was superior to 'standard' multi-dose 4:1 blood cardioplegia in aged rat hearts. This study seeks to determine if multi-dose del Nido cardioplegia offers additional benefits over single-dose del Nido cardioplegia. METHODS: Functional recovery after 60 min of cardioplegic arrest was assessed in isolated, working, senescent rat hearts. Single-dose del Nido cardioplegia (n=14) was compared to multi-dose del Nido cardioplegia (n=12) delivered every 20 min. RESULTS: Troponin release during reperfusion was similar in the single (0.263 ± 0.056 ng/ml) and multi-dose groups (0.261 ± 0.055 ng/ml). Although functional recovery was similar early after reperfusion (stroke work 91 ± 6 ml*mmHg*g(-1) vs. 91 ± 8 ml*mmHg*g(-1) for single- vs. multi-dose), it declined over time in the multi-dose group (71 ± 9 vs. 43 ± 9 ml*mmHg*g(-1) at 60 min, p=0.0175) CONCLUSIONS: In aged rat hearts, a single-dose del Nido cardioplegia strategy results in superior functional recovery compared to a multi-dose del Nido cardioplegia strategy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".