RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The isolated heart apparatus is over 100 years old, but remains a useful research tool today. While designs of many large animal systems have been described in the literature, trouble-shooting and refining such a model to yield a stable, workable system has not been previously described. This paper outlines the issues, in tabular form, that our group encountered in developing our own porcine isolated heart rig with the aim of assisting other workers in the field planning similar work. The paper also highlights some of the modern applications of the isolated heart apparatus. Methods Landrace pigs (50-80 kg) were used in a pilot project to develop the model. The model was then used in a study examining the effects of various cardioplegic solutions on function after reanimation of porcine hearts. During the two projects, non-protocol issues were documented as well as their solutions. These were aggregated in this paper. RESULTS: Issues faced by the group without explicit literature solutions included pig size selection, animal acclimatisation, porcine transoesophageal echocardiography, cannulation and phlebotomy for cross-clamping, cardioplegia delivery, heart suspension and rig tuning. CONCLUSION: Prior recognition of issues and possible solutions faced by workers establishing a porcine isolated heart system will speed progress towards a useable system for research. The isolated heart apparatus remains applicable in transplant, ischaemia reperfusion, heart failure and organ preservation research.
Assuntos
Coração/fisiologia , Preparação de Coração Isolado/instrumentação , Perfusão/instrumentação , Suínos/fisiologia , Animais , Soluções Cardioplégicas/administração & dosagem , Desenho de Equipamento , Parada Cardíaca Induzida/instrumentação , Parada Cardíaca Induzida/métodos , Preparação de Coração Isolado/métodos , Preservação de Órgãos/instrumentação , Preservação de Órgãos/métodos , Perfusão/métodos , Projetos PilotoRESUMO
We report a case series of anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine-coated central venous catheters (CVCs) when used in cardiac surgical patients in our institution. Our experience, together with increasing reports of anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine-coated CVCs from other sources indicates that chlorhexidine-coated CVCs are not without additional risk. Attempts to lower rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection has led to the widespread adoption of chlorhexidine-coated CVCs in the perioperative and critical care setting, including for routine cardiac surgery. However, closer scrutiny indicates that there is lack of strong evidence demonstrating a meaningful reduction in rates of sepsis or serious morbidity, especially with CVC dwell times of less than seven days. Given the lack of clear benefit, we recommend non-coated CVCs for routine cardiac surgery, with even consideration for chlorhexidine-coated CVCs when specifically indicated for patients at high risk of CVC infection.