Comparison of direct aortic and femoral cannulation for port-access cardiac operations.
Ann Thorac Surg
; 68(4): 1529-31, 1999 Oct.
Article
in En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-10543561
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND:
Differences in outcome after direct aortic cannulation (AORT) in the chest versus standard femoral arterial cannulation (FEM) have not been defined for minimally invasive cardiac operations utilizing the port-access approach.METHODS:
A retrospective study was performed of 165 patients undergoing port-access cardiac mitral valve operation (n = 126) or coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 39). In 113 patients, FEM was used, while in 52 patients, AORT was accomplished through a port in the first intercostal space.RESULTS:
AORT eliminated endoaortic balloon clamp migration (0/36 [0%] vs. 17/95 [18%]), and groin wound or femoral arterial complications (0/52 [0%] vs. 11/113 [10%]) without changing procedure times (363+/-55 vs. 355+/-70 minutes). Complications attributable to AORT were injury to the right internal mammary artery and aortic cannulation site bleeding in 1 patient each.CONCLUSIONS:
Direct aortic cannulation is technically easy, allows use of an endoaortic clamp, and avoids aorto-iliac arterial disease, the groin incision, and possible femoral arterial injury associated with femoral arterial cannulation. Direct arterial cannulation should expand the pool of patients eligible for port-access operation, and may become the standard for port-access procedures.
Search on Google
Collection:
01-internacional
Database:
MEDLINE
Main subject:
Coronary Artery Bypass
/
Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures
/
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation
/
Heart Valve Diseases
/
Mitral Valve
Type of study:
Observational_studies
/
Risk_factors_studies
Limits:
Adult
/
Female
/
Humans
/
Male
/
Middle aged
Language:
En
Journal:
Ann Thorac Surg
Year:
1999
Document type:
Article
Affiliation country:
United States