A New Technique of Myocardial Protection during Aortic Root Replacement: Antegrade/Retrograde Coronary Perfusion

Beating heart continuous coronary perfusion for valve surgery: what next for clinical trials?

Prior to the introduction of cardioplegia, beating heart continuous coronary perfusion (BHCCP) was the only available method of myocardial protection. Currently, cardiac surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass with cardioplegic arrest is the gold standard strategy. Cardioplegic arrest provides an easier and safer way to operate on a still heart. It enables the performance of a broader range of cardiac procedures, and avoids the potential difficulties of continuous perfusion on a beating heart. Despite the overall effectiveness and safety of cardioplegia, some adverse effects remain, mainly due to the insult of ischemia, which results in ischemic reperfusion injury. As a result BHCCP has seen a revival as an alternative to cardioplegia for performing complex valvular surgery. Increasing experience reporting safety and efficacy of BHCCP is being published. However, despite the reported advantages, current available evidence validating safety and efficacy of BHCCP is controversial. This article provides an overview of BHCCP highlighting the current best available evidence supporting this strategy, concerns, controversies and potential areas for further research.

Beating-Heart Valve Surgery: A Systematic Review

Beating-heart continuous coronary perfusion (BHCCP) has been promoted as an alternative to the technique of cardioplegic arrest in valve surgery. Its potential advantage is the elimination of cardioplegia and the corollary risk of ischemic reperfusion injury. The use of CCP has been recommended especially when performing more complex operations, such as mitral valve repair, and particularly as surgeons become more familiar with beating-heart coronary surgery. We conducted a systematic review to assess the strength of the evidence supporting the efficacy of BHCCP compared to cardioplegia in valve surgery. Thirty nine reports were identified. Of these, only two were randomized control trials. Overall the studies were generally of poor quality and had a low evidence level. In those studies, mortality and major morbidity from BHCCP were within acceptable levels, nevertheless, there was no advantage over cardioplegic arrest. On the other hand there is weak evidence that it may reduce functional and biochemical markers of myocardial injury. In conclusion, BHCCP is an operative strategy in valve surgery with some potential benefits. There is, however a need for a high quality, prospective, randomized control trial to establish the exact role for BHCCP in complex valve surgery.