Myocardial Protection in Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery: Retrograde Cardioplegia Alone Using Endovascular Coronary Sinus Catheter Compared With Combined Antegrade and Retrograde Cardioplegia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare myocardial protection with retrograde cardioplegia alone with antegrade and retrograde cardioplegia in minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMS).

DESIGN: Retrospective study.

SETTING: Tertiary care university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS: The authors studied 97 MIMS patients using retrograde cardioplegia alone and 118 MIMS patients using antegrade and retrograde cardioplegia.

INTERVENTIONS: The data from patients admitted for MIMS using retrograde cardioplegia (MIMS retro) between 2009 to 2012 were compared with the data from patients undergoing MIMS with antegrade and retrograde cardioplegia (MIMS ante-retro) between 2006 and 2010 (control group). Cardioplegia in the MIMS retro group was delivered solely through an endovascular coronary sinus (CS) catheter positioned under echographic and fluoroscopic guidance. Antegrade and retrograde cardioplegia was used in the MIMS ante-retro group. Data regarding myocardial infarction (MI; creatine kinase Mb, troponin T, electrocardiogram), myocardial function, and hemodynamic stability were collected for comparison.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Adequate cardioplegia administration (CS pressure >30 mmHg and asystole) was attained in 74.2% of the patients with retrograde cardioplegia alone. In 23.7% of the patients, the addition of an antegrade cardioplegia was necessary. No difference was observed in the incidence of MI (0 MIMS retro v 1 for MIMS ante-retro, p = 0.3623), difficult separation from cardiopulmonary bypass, and postoperative malignant arrhythmia. No difference was found for maximal creatine kinase Mb (39.1 [28.0-49.1] v 37.9 [28.6-50.9]; p = 0.8299) and for maximal troponin T levels (0.39 [0.27-0.70] v 0.47 [0.32-0.79]; p = 0.1231) for MIMS retro and MIMS ante-retro, respectively. However, lactate levels in the MIMS retro group were significantly lower than in the MIMS ante-retro group (2.1 [1.4-3.05] v 2.4 [1.8-3.3], respectively; p = 0.0453). No difference was observed in duration of intensive care unit stay and death. MIMS retro patients had a shorter hospital stay (7.0 [6.0-8.0] v 8.0 [7.0-9.0] days; p = 0.0003).

CONCLUSION: Retrograde cardioplegia administration alone provided comparable myocardial protection to antegrade and retrograde cardioplegia during MIMS, but was not sufficient to achieve asystole in one-fifth of patients.