The evaluation of constant coronary artery flow versus constant coronary perfusion pressure during normothermic ex situ heart perfusion.

BACKGROUND:Evidence suggests that hearts that are perfused under ex-situ conditions lose normal coronary vasomotor tone and experience contractile failure over a few hours. We aimed to evaluate the effect of different coronary perfusion strategies during ex situ heart perfusion on cardiac function and coronary vascular tone. METHODS:Porcine hearts (n = 6 each group) were perfused in working mode for 6 hours with either constant aortic diastolic pressure (40 mmHg) or constant coronary flow rate (500 mL/min). Functional and metabolic parameters, cytokine profiles, cardiac and vascular injury, coronary artery function and oxidative stress were compared between groups. RESULTS:Constant coronary flow perfusion demonstrated better functional preservation and less edema formation (Cardiac index: flow control = 8.33 vs pressure control = 6.46 mL·min-1·g-1, p = 0.016; edema formation: 7.92% vs 19.80%, p < 0.0001). Pro-inflammatory cytokines, platelet activation as well as endothelial activation were lower in the flow control group. Similarly, less cardiac and endothelial injury was observed in the constant coronary flow group. Evaluation of coronary artery function showed there was loss of coronary autoregulation in both groups. Oxidative stress was induced in the coronary arteries and was relatively lower in the flow control group. CONCLUSIONS:A strategy of controlled coronary flow during ex situ heart perfusion provides superior functional preservation and less edema formation, together with less myocardial damage, leukocyte, platelet, endothelial activation, and oxidative stress. There was loss of coronary autoregulation and decrease of coronary vascular resistance during ESHP irrespective of coronary flow control strategy. Inflammation and oxidative stress state in the coronary vasculature may play a role.