A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of del Nido Versus Conventional Cardioplegia in Adult Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Del Nido cardioplegia (DC) has been used extensively in pediatric cardiac surgery but the efficacy and safety in adults remains uncertain. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing DC and blood cardioplegia (BC) in our primary endpoint of 30-day or in-hospital mortality as well as other efficacy and safety endpoints. Methods Both MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1996 to 2017 for studies comparing DC and BC. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators and aggregated in a random effects model. Results One randomized controlled trial ( n = 89), 7 adjusted ( n = 1,104), and 5 unadjusted observational studies ( n = 717) were included. There was no difference in in-hospital mortality between DC and BC (relative risk:0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22, 2.07; P = 0.49). DC reduced cardioplegia volume requirements (mean difference [MD]:−1.1 L, 95% CI, −1.6, −0.6; P < 0.0001), aortic cross-clamp time (MD: −8 minutes, 95% CI, −12, −3; P = 0.0004), and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times (MD: −8 minutes, 95% CI, −14, −3; P = 0.03). DC reduced troponin release (standardized MD: −0.3, 95% CI, −0.5, −0.1; P = 0.001). In-hospital outcomes of stroke, atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury/dialysis, low cardiac output state, blood transfusion, reoperation rate, postoperative left ventricular EF, intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital LOS were comparable between groups. Conclusions DC is a safe alternative to BC in routine adult cardiac surgery. Its use is associated with reduction in CPB and aortic cross-clamp times and may potentially offer improved myocardial protection.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".