Del Nido Cardioplegia Versus Cold Blood Cardioplegia in Adult Cardiac Surgery: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of cardioplegia solutions as a myocardial protection technique is essential during cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The del Nido cardioplegia solution (DNS) has been widely used as a myocardial preservation technique for pediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Its unique pharmacological features have created growing interest for adult cardiac surgery, especially for elderly patients or those with ventricular dysfunction who are more prone to ischemia-reperfusion injury. Ever since its implementation, several retrospective studies have been published to validate the efficacy, safety, and efficiency of DNS in adult patients undergoing coronary revascularization, valve replacement, or combined procedures. Recently, a meta-analysis based on nine retrospective studies was published claiming the noninferiority of DNS compared to other conventional cardioplegia solutions. Few prospective randomized studies have been conducted whose primary outcome was the assessment of DNS clinical efficacy compared to other solutions commonly used in adult patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized clinical trial is to assess the benefits of DNS compared to Cardi-Braun blood cardioplegia solution in clinical and biochemical terms regarding myocardial protection during adult cardiac surgery. METHODS: This is the protocol of a controlled, randomized, single-center clinical trial carried out at the Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda University Hospital in Spain. A total of 474 participants over the age of 18 years undergoing elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass will be assigned to groups by simple randomization to receive either DNS or Cardi-Braun blood cardioplegia solution. The primary outcome will be the differences between groups in myocardial protection in biochemical terms (ie, perioperative troponin levels) and clinical terms (ie, presence of the composite variable acute cardiovascular event). The clinical trial will be carried out under conditions of respect for the fundamental rights of the person and the ethical principles that affect biomedical research with human beings, as well as in accordance with international recommendations contained in the Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent revisions. RESULTS: The inclusion process started in 2018. Data cleaning and analyses are expected to take place in the fall of 2020 and the results are expected in January 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This study is particularly relevant as it will be one of the first to analyze the clinical effects of del Nido cardioplegia on the basis of direct myocardial protection parameters. In light of published studies, carrying out prospective studies based on primary clinical objectives with a larger sample, high-risk patients, and longer cardiopulmonary bypass times continues to be necessary. We believe that our study addresses an important gap in the knowledge of del Nido cardioplegia in adult patient cardiac surgery and will be able to clarify the possible benefits of this method in a large population of patients undergoing these procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) 2017-005144-14; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2017-005144-14+; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04094168; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04094168. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/17826.
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 | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.005 |
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".