Dataset Information

Femoral artery cannulation as a safe alternative for aortic dissection arch repair in the era of axillary artery cannulation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of femoral artery cannulation as an alternative to axillary artery cannulation, we retrospectively compared outcomes between patients with axillary or femoral artery cannulation during open aortic arch repair for type A aortic dissection (TAAD).

Methods

Between January 2014 and January 2019, 646 patients underwent open aortic arch repair with circulatory arrest for TAAD using antegrade selective cerebral perfusion (SACP) and were divided into two groups according to the site of arterial cannulation: an axillary artery group (axillary group, n=558) or a femoral artery group (femoral group, n=88). The axillary artery was considered as the primary cannulation site, and the femoral artery was used as an alternative when axillary artery cannulation was deemed unsuitable or had failed. Propensity score matching was performed to correct baseline differences.

Results

After propensity score matching, the patients' characteristics were comparable between groups (n=85 in each). The incidence of in-hospital mortality (10.6% vs. 14.1%; P=0.642) and stroke (3.5% vs. 5.9%; P=0.720) were comparable between the axillary and femoral groups. The incidence of newly required dialysis was lower in the femoral group, but the difference was not statistically significant (34.1% vs. 20.0%; P=0.050). Other outcomes and major adverse events were comparable.

Conclusions

Femoral artery cannulation produced similar perioperative outcomes to axillary cannulation after open arch repair for TAAD. The femoral artery can be used as a safe and effective alternative to the axillary artery for arterial cannulation in TAAD patients undergoing open arch repair.

SUBMITTER: Tong G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7947520 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Femoral artery cannulation as a safe alternative for aortic dissection arch repair in the era of axillary artery cannulation.

Tong Guang G Zhuang Dong-Lin DL Sun Zhong-Chan ZC Chen Ze-Rui ZR Fan Rui-Xin RX Sun Tu-Cheng TC

Journal of thoracic disease 20210201 2

<h4>Background</h4>To evaluate the safety and efficacy of femoral artery cannulation as an alternative to axillary artery cannulation, we retrospectively compared outcomes between patients with axillary or femoral artery cannulation during open aortic arch repair for type A aortic dissection (TAAD).<h4>Methods</h4>Between January 2014 and January 2019, 646 patients underwent open aortic arch repair with circulatory arrest for TAAD using antegrade selective cerebral perfusion (SACP) and were divi ...[more]

PMID: 33717540

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCannulation strategy in surgery for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) remains controversial. We aimed to retrospectively analyze the safety and efficacy of double arterial cannulation (DAC) compared with right axillary cannulation (RAC) for ATAAD.MethodsFrom January 2016 to December 2018, 431 ATAAD patients were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into DAC group (n = 341) and RAC group (n = 90). Propensity score matching analysis was performed to compare the early and mid-term outcomes between these two groups. To confirm the organ protection effect by DAC, intraoperative blood gas results and cardiopulmonary bypass parameters were compared between the two groups.ResultsDemographics and preoperative comorbidities were comparable between two groups, while patients in DAC group were younger than RAC group (51.55 ± 13.21 vs. 56.07 ± 12.16 years, P < 0.001). DAC had a higher incidence of limb malperfusion (18.2% vs. 10.0%, P = 0.063) and lower incidence of coronary malperfusion (5.3% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.019). No significant difference in cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time was found between the two groups. The in-hospital mortality was 13.5% (58/431), while there was no difference between the two groups (13.5% vs. 13.3%; P = 0.969). Patients who underwent DAC had higher incidence of postoperative stroke (5.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.019) and lower incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) (24.7% vs. 40.3%; P = 0.015). During a mean follow-up period of 31.8 (interquartile range, 25-45) months, the overall survival was 81.5% for DAC group and 78.0% for RAC group (P = 0.560). Intraoperative blood gas results and cardiopulmonary bypass parameters showed that DAC group had more intraoperative urine output volume than RAC group (P = 0.05), and the time of cooling (P = 0.04) and rewarming (P = 0.04) were shorter in DAC group.ConclusionsDAC will not increase the surgical risks compared to RAC, but could reduce the incidence of postoperative AKI which may be benefit for renal protection.

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal arterial cannulation site for acute aortic dissection repair is unclear, especially for complex arch surgery. Axillary artery cannulation is widely accepted but adding femoral artery cannulation to it was considered to potentially improve perfusion and early outcomes. To clarify this point, a comparison of perioperative outcomes for these two different cannulation strategies was conducted regarding the pathological features of dissection.MethodsFrom January 2010 to December 2019, 927 consecutive patients underwent a total arch replacement combined with frozen elephant trunk for acute type A aortic dissection. The data, including detailed pathological features, were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Propensity score matching and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used for adjusting confounders that are potentially related to the outcome.ResultsA total of 523 patients (56.3%) accepted a dual arterial cannulation (DAC group), and 406 patients (43.7%) received a single axillary artery cannulation (SAC group). In total, 388 pairs of patients were well-matched. Whether before or after adjusting the preoperative characteristics by matching, there were no significant differences in operative mortality (6.7 vs. 5.4%, P = 0.420 before matching; 5.4 vs. 5.4%, P = 1 after matching), stroke (6.7 vs. 5.4%, P = 0.420 before matching; 6.4 vs. 5.2%, P = 0.435 after matching), spinal cord injury (5 vs. 5.7%, P = 0.640 before matching; 5.4 vs. 5.7%, P = 1. After matching), and acute renal failure requiring dialysis (13.8 vs. 9.6%, P =0.050 before matching; 12.6 vs. 9.5%, P = 0.174) between the two groups. Dual arterial cannulation was not an independent protective factor of operative mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55-1.86), stroke (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.65-2.11), spinal cord injury (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.65-2.11), and acute renal failure requiring continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.78-1.97) after adjusting for confounding factors by multivariable logistic regression analysis. In the subgroup analysis, no advantage of dual arterial cannulation was found for a particular population.ConclusionsSingle axillary artery cannulation was competent in the complex arch repair for acute aortic dissection, presenting with a satisfactory result as dual arterial cannulation. Adding femoral artery cannulation was necessary when a sufficient flow volume could not be achieved by axillary artery cannulation or when a lower limb malperfusion existed.

Dataset Information

Femoral artery cannulation as a safe alternative for aortic dissection arch repair in the era of axillary artery cannulation.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Femoral artery cannulation as a safe alternative for aortic dissection arch repair in the era of axillary artery cannulation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets