Hawkins RB, Stewart JW 2nd, Wu X, Goldberg J, Fitzgerald D, DeLucia A 3rd, Graebner B, Willekes C, Pagani FD, Nieter DH, Likosky DS, and Ailawadi G
Objectives: The use of del Nido cardioplegia in adult cardiac surgery is rising in popularity. The objective of this large multicenter study was to evaluate the use and associated outcomes of del Nido versus blood cardioplegia in adult cardiac surgery., Methods: Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and/or valve (mitral, aortic), and/or nondescending thoracic aortic surgery (July 2014 to March 2022) across 39 centers were extracted from the Perfusion Measures and Outcomes registry. Patients were stratified by cardioplegia type for unadjusted analysis and multivariable mixed-effects models were used for risk adjustment., Results: Of 44,175 patients, 42.5% used del Nido, with use increasing 48% over time. Overall, the del Nido group had shorter median crossclamp time (74 minutes vs 87 minutes, P < .001) and lower median peak intraoperative glucose levels (161 mg/dL vs 180 mg/dL, P < .001). Use of del Nido was not associated with operative mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR adj ], 1.16; P = .075) nor major morbidity (OR adj , 1.05; P = .25). Findings for valve cases were similar, except crossclamp time differences were variable by type of valve procedure. Within the CABG subgroup there was a trend toward increased operative mortality with del Nido (OR adj , 1.24; P = .069), whereas the risk of renal failure approaches statistical significance in the aortic subgroup (OR adj , 1.54; P = .056)., Conclusions: In this large, multicenter study, the use of del Nido was associated with variable crossclamp time differences, lower intraoperative glucose levels, and no significant difference in major morbidity or mortality. Efficiency benefits of del Nido may be limited in valve cases, whereas outcomes in CABG and aortic cases warrant further study., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement Outside of this work, Dr Donald S. Likosky receives research funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), serves as a consultant for the American Society of ExtraCorporeal Technology, and receives partial salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to advance quality in Michigan in conjunction with the Michigan Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons Quality Collaborative. Dr Francis D. Pagani is an ad hoc, noncompensated scientific advisor for Medtronic, Abbott, FineHeart, and CH Biomedical; noncompensated medical monitor for Abiomed; a member of the Data Safety Monitoring Board for Carmat and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PumpKIN Study; and receives partial salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan as associate director of the Michigan Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons Quality Collaborative. Dr Stewart receives full salary support from the Veterans Affairs (VA) as a National Clinician Scholars Program (NCSP) research fellow at the University of Michigan. The views of this manuscript do not represent the AHRQ, NIH or VA. Dr Ailawadi is a consultant for Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards, Gore, Anteris, AtriCure, CryoLife, Philips, Johnson & Johnson, JenaValve, Mediasphere, and Arthrex. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)