These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Celsior preserved cardiac mechanoenergetics better than popular solutions in canine hearts.
    Author: Oshima Y, Mohri S, Shimizu J, Iribe G, Imaoka T, Fujinaka W, Kiyooka T, Ishino K, Sano S, Kajiya F, Suga H.
    Journal: Ann Thorac Surg; 2006 Feb; 81(2):658-64. PubMed ID: 16427870.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Better protective effects of Celsior on cardiac function than the other conventional solutions have been reported in acute experiments and in clinical trials for at-risk patients. However, no study has yet precisely elucidated how these preservation solutions affect cardiac mechanoenergetics. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of St. Thomas' Hospital solution No. 2, University of Wisconsin solution, and Celsior on left ventricular contractility (Emax: end-systolic pressure-volume ratio) and oxygen consumption. METHODS: We used 32 canine excised cross-circulated hearts. Twenty-three hearts served as donor hearts after hypothermic ischemia with one of the three solutions, and the remaining 9 served as controls. After arrest with each solution, the hearts were preserved for 4 hours at 4 degrees C. Then, we measured left ventricular pressure, volume, and oxygen consumption to obtain Emax and the relation between ventricular pressure-volume area (a measure of total mechanical energy) and oxygen consumption. We also evaluated the oxygen cost of Emax by changing Emax with calcium administration. RESULTS: Celsior did not significantly affect E(max) (6.3 +/- 2.4 in control versus 5.3 +/- 1.3 mm Hg.mL(-1).100 g with Celsior) nor the oxygen cost of Emax (1.2 +/- 0.6 versus 1.6 +/- 0.5 mL O2.mL.mm Hg(-1).beat(-1).100 g(-2), respectively). In contrast, St. Thomas' Hospital and University of Wisconsin solutions significantly decreased Emax (4.5 +/- 1.1 and 3.5 +/- 0.9 mm Hg.mL(-1).100 g, respectively) and increased the oxygen cost of Emax (2.5 +/- 0.8 and 2.4 +/- 0.9 mL O2.mL.mm Hg(-1).beat(-1).100 g(-2), respectively) compared with control and Celsior-preserved hearts. The slope and intercept of the oxygen consumption versus pressure-volume area relation showed no significant difference among the four groups. CONCLUSIONS: Celsior showed better protective effects on cardiac mechanoenergetics than St. Thomas' Hospital and University of Wisconsin solutions in the acute phase of heart transplantation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]