الفهرس 
Introduction
Aim of the workOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 170 |  |  |
| | | from | 170 | | |
Abstract
The different methods of myocardial protection have been demonstrated in numerous studies, in this study we compared the effects of warm cardioplegic technique and the beating heart technique during mitral valve replacement in patients with chronic mitral regurgitation and left ventricular dysfunction.
Sixty patients underwent surgical correction of mitral insuf-ficiency. They were prospectively randomized to mitral valve replacement using warm bloody cardioplegia or beating heart technique. Complete data from these 60 patients were available for analysis. Of these individuals, 30 had been operated upon using warm bloody cardioplegia (group I), 30 using beating heart technique (group II).
Left ventricular (LV) function was evaluated utilizing echocardiography preoperatively and postoperatively (in hospital and 6 month later) to measure LVEDD (Left Ventricular End Diastolic Diameter), LVESD (Left Ventricular End Systolic Diameter), LVEF (Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction), LVFS (Left Ventricular Fraction Shortening), LAD (Left Atrial Diameter) and PASP (Pulmonary Artery Systolic Pressure).
Preoperatively, there was no significant difference between the two examined groups in age, sex, NYHA and echocardiographically.
Summary
The aortic cross clamp time was in control group I only and in the beating group II there was no cross clamp time but the mitral surgical time, which was significantly longer in beating (group II) compared to the control (group I).
However, the total bypass time was not significantly longer in the beating group II compared to the control group I.
Regarding the need for support; the beating group II needed significantly lower doses of support compared to the control group I.
There was significantly longer mechanical ventilation time and ICU stay in the control group I compared to beating group II.
Both the early (in hospital) and late (6 months) postoperative echocardiography showed a similar improvement in the two groups regarding left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and left ventricular end systolic diameter (LVESD) but a significant difference in left ventricular function in favor of the beating technique as the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular fraction shortening (LVFS) were better in beating group II than the control group I.
The significant differences in EF and FS which was in favor of beating group II over the warm blood cardioplegia technique in early and late postoperative echocardiographic results, explains the generally better course of patients of this group in hospital and during
the early follow up period, this together with the absence of related perioperative mortality and the major complications suggests that it is safe and beneficial to LV function