Impact of myocardial protection during coronary bypass surgery on patient outcome.

We have recently shown that continuous coronary perfusion with warm blood enriched with the ultra-short acting beta-blocker Esmolol (ES) improves functional and structural myocardial protection during coronary artery surgery as compared with conventional cardioplegia (CP). The purpose of the present study was to compare both myocardial protection techniques in terms of patient outcome. We retrospectively analyzed the charts of 150 consecutive patients subjected to coronary artery surgery using the ES-technique; 150 patients matched for age, gender, preoperative left ventricular function, history of renal failure, and history of neurological symptoms undergoing surgery with conventional CP during the same time period served as control group. There were no significant differences between both groups with respect to perioperative myocardial infarction rate, need for positive inotropic medication, need for mechanical circulatory support, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of intensive care unit stay, time of mobilization, postoperative renal failure, cardiac arrhythmias, neurological symptoms, infections or in-hospital mortality. ES-patients were less frequently readmitted to the intensive care unit (ES: 3/150; 2.2% [95% confidence interval: 0-4.2%] vs. CP: 13/150; 8.7% [4.2-13.2%]; P=0.010) and total hospital stay was shorter (ES: 12.3+/-4.8 days [95% CI: 11.5-13.0] vs CP: 13.5+/-3.8 [12.9-14.1] days; P=0.0013), thus saving 159 patient days on the normal ward. Procedural costs were less for the ES-technique (US$ 60 per patient) as compared to the cardioplegia technique (US$ 120 per patient). These data suggest that myocardial protection using the ES-technique does not improve clinical outcome in patients subjected to routine coronary artery surgery, but may save costs.