TY - JOUR
T1 - Celsior preserved cardiac mechanoenergetics better than popular solutions in canine hearts
AU - Oshima, Yu
AU - Mohri, Satoshi
AU - Shimizu, Juichiro
AU - Iribe, Gentaro
AU - Imaoka, Takeshi
AU - Fujinaka, Waso
AU - Kiyooka, Takahiko
AU - Ishino, Kozo
AU - Sano, Shunji
AU - Kajiya, Fumihiko
AU - Suga, Hiroyuki
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was partly supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (13558113, 13770350, 13878185, 13878192, 14380405) from the Ministry of Education, Science, Technology, Sports and Culture, and a Research Grant for Cardiovascular Diseases (14A-1) from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, all from Japan.
PY - 2006/2
Y1 - 2006/2
N2 - 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°C. Then, we measured left ventricular pressure, volume, and oxygen consumption to obtain E max 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 Emax (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.
AB - 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°C. Then, we measured left ventricular pressure, volume, and oxygen consumption to obtain E max 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 Emax (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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=31044432654&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=31044432654&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.07.067
DO - 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.07.067
M3 - Article
C2 - 16427870
AN - SCOPUS:31044432654
SN - 0003-4975
VL - 81
SP - 658
EP - 664
JO - Annals of Thoracic Surgery
JF - Annals of Thoracic Surgery
IS - 2
ER -