Aortic versus axillary artery cannulation for hemiarch replacement: single-centre real-world experience.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord
; 24(1): 462, 2024 Aug 28.
Article
en En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-39198748
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Aortic arch disease is a major cause of acute dissections. Surgical replacement is the current curative treatment for aortic arch disease. While traditional aortic cannulation ensures lower body perfusion, axillary cannulation offers optimum cerebral perfusion.AIM:
To evaluate the outcomes of aortic and axillary cannulation methods in hemiarch replacements, focusing on postoperative perfusion and survival. MATERIALS ANDMETHODS:
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 91 patients who underwent hemiarch replacement surgery between February 2007 and October 2016. Patients were divided into two groups based on the cannulationmethod:
aortic cannulation (54 patients) and axillary cannulation (37 patients). Data regarding preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were analyzed, including demographics, surgical outcomes, and complications.RESULTS:
Demographic analysis showed comparable characteristics between the two groups, with notable differences in aortic disease severity and classification. Patients in the axillary group had a larger ascending aorta diameter (57.7 ± 10.8 mm vs. 51.8 ± 5.7 mm, p = 0.002) and a higher prevalence of acute dissections (27.0% (n = 10) vs. 3.7% (n = 2), p = 0.001). Cerebral protection methods varied significantly between the two groups (p < 0.001). Antegrade cerebral perfusion was used in 37.8% (n = 14) of the axillary group compared to 3.7% (n = 2) of the central group. The central cannulation group had a higher proportion of patients with temperatures under 20 °C (98.1% (n = 53) vs. 21.6% (n = 8), p < 0.001), whereas the axillary group maintained higher temperatures (24 -28 °C) in 68.6% (n = 23) of cases. AV repair/replacement was more frequent in the aortic cannulation group (48.2% (n = 26) vs. 18.9% (n = 7), p = 0.013). No significant disparities were observed in operative mortality or intraoperative complications. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between the two groups in the in-hospital outcomes, but renal complications were more prevalent in the axillary cannulation group with 21.6% (n = 8) experiencing acute kidney injury compared to 9.3% (n = 5) in the central group (p = 0.098). The overall survival rate was slightly higher in the aortic cannulation group at various follow-up periods, yet no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups.CONCLUSION:
We found no significant differences in safety and efficacy between axillary cannulation and aortic cannulation in hemiarch replacement procedures.Palabras clave
Texto completo:
1
Colección:
01-internacional
Asunto principal:
Complicaciones Posoperatorias
/
Arteria Axilar
/
Cateterismo Periférico
/
Implantación de Prótesis Vascular
/
Disección Aórtica
Límite:
Aged
/
Female
/
Humans
/
Male
/
Middle aged
Idioma:
En
Revista:
BMC Cardiovasc Disord
Asunto de la revista:
ANGIOLOGIA
/
CARDIOLOGIA
Año:
2024
Tipo del documento:
Article
País de afiliación:
Turquía