Direct aortic cannulation, a safe alternative to femoral artery cannulation - 17 years of type A dissection surgery experience

Tim Somers, Wilson W. L. Li, J. Jongenotter, Michel W. Verkroost, A. F. Verhagen, Wim J. Morshuis, Tim Smith, Guillaume S. C. Geuzebroek, R. Heijmen
{"title":"Direct aortic cannulation, a safe alternative to femoral artery cannulation - 17 years of type A dissection surgery experience","authors":"Tim Somers, Wilson W. L. Li, J. Jongenotter, Michel W. Verkroost, A. F. Verhagen, Wim J. Morshuis, Tim Smith, Guillaume S. C. Geuzebroek, R. Heijmen","doi":"10.20517/2574-1209.2023.48","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: Optimal cannulation strategy for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) surgery remains debated. Recent guidelines have advocated antegrade systemic perfusion through right axillary artery (RAX) cannulation, instead of femoral artery (FA) cannulation. However, RAX cannulation can be technically challenging and time-consuming. On the other hand, direct (ascending) aorta (DA) cannulation is a swift procedure that also ensures downstream antegrade flow. In this regard, we assessed whether DA cannulation is a safe alternative to FA cannulation.\n Methods: Records of all patients undergoing ATAAD surgery between 2006-2022 at the Radboud University Medical Center were retrospectively reviewed.\n Results: In total, 281 patients underwent surgery for ATAAD during the investigated period. Three patients were excluded due to death before the start of extracorporeal circulation and four because of RAX cannulation. Of the remaining 274 patients, 53% (N = 145) received primary FA and 47% (N = 129) DA cannulation, with a success rate of 98% for both approaches. Surgical mortality (combined in-hospital and 30-day) was 9.9% (7.8% DA group vs. 11.7% FA group, P = 0.271). New permanent neurological damage was seen in 10.9% vs. 6.9% (P = 0.248), respectively. In multivariate analysis, cannulation strategies were not significantly associated with surgical mortality nor postoperative new permanent neurological damage.\n Conclusion: DA cannulation offers a safe and fast alternative to FA cannulation in ATAAD surgery. There were no significant differences in mortality and neurological complications. Future studies should focus on the differences between RAX and DA cannulation strategies on postoperative outcomes in ATAAD surgery.","PeriodicalId":75299,"journal":{"name":"Vessel plus","volume":" 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vessel plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20517/2574-1209.2023.48","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Optimal cannulation strategy for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) surgery remains debated. Recent guidelines have advocated antegrade systemic perfusion through right axillary artery (RAX) cannulation, instead of femoral artery (FA) cannulation. However, RAX cannulation can be technically challenging and time-consuming. On the other hand, direct (ascending) aorta (DA) cannulation is a swift procedure that also ensures downstream antegrade flow. In this regard, we assessed whether DA cannulation is a safe alternative to FA cannulation. Methods: Records of all patients undergoing ATAAD surgery between 2006-2022 at the Radboud University Medical Center were retrospectively reviewed. Results: In total, 281 patients underwent surgery for ATAAD during the investigated period. Three patients were excluded due to death before the start of extracorporeal circulation and four because of RAX cannulation. Of the remaining 274 patients, 53% (N = 145) received primary FA and 47% (N = 129) DA cannulation, with a success rate of 98% for both approaches. Surgical mortality (combined in-hospital and 30-day) was 9.9% (7.8% DA group vs. 11.7% FA group, P = 0.271). New permanent neurological damage was seen in 10.9% vs. 6.9% (P = 0.248), respectively. In multivariate analysis, cannulation strategies were not significantly associated with surgical mortality nor postoperative new permanent neurological damage. Conclusion: DA cannulation offers a safe and fast alternative to FA cannulation in ATAAD surgery. There were no significant differences in mortality and neurological complications. Future studies should focus on the differences between RAX and DA cannulation strategies on postoperative outcomes in ATAAD surgery.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
主动脉直接插管,股动脉插管的安全替代方案 - 17 年 A 型夹层手术经验
目的:急性 A 型主动脉夹层(ATAAD)手术的最佳插管策略仍存在争议。最近的指南提倡通过右腋动脉(RAX)插管进行前向全身灌注,而不是股动脉(FA)插管。然而,RAX 插管在技术上具有挑战性,而且耗时较长。另一方面,直接(升)主动脉(DA)插管是一种快速的手术,也能确保下游逆行血流。为此,我们评估了 DA 插管是否是 FA 插管的安全替代方案。方法:回顾性审查了 2006-2022 年间在拉德布德大学医学中心接受 ATAAD 手术的所有患者的记录。结果:在调查期间,共有 281 名患者接受了 ATAAD 手术。其中有3名患者因在体外循环开始前死亡而被排除,4名患者因RAX插管而被排除。在剩余的 274 名患者中,53%(145 人)接受了初级 FA,47%(129 人)接受了 DA 插管,两种方法的成功率均为 98%。手术死亡率(院内死亡率和 30 天死亡率之和)为 9.9%(DA 组 7.8% 对 FA 组 11.7%,P = 0.271)。出现新的永久性神经损伤的比例分别为 10.9% 对 6.9%(P = 0.248)。在多变量分析中,插管策略与手术死亡率和术后新的永久性神经损伤无明显关联。结论在ATAAD手术中,DA插管是FA插管的一种安全、快速的替代方案。死亡率和神经系统并发症没有明显差异。未来的研究应重点关注RAX和DA插管策略对ATAAD手术术后结果的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Echocardiographic cardiac views classification using whale optimization and weighted support vector machine Association of inflammation, oxidative stress, and deteriorated cognitive functions in patients after cardiac surgery Role of inflammation in the progression of diabetic kidney disease Multivessel disease in patient with acute myocardial infarction: current treatment strategies and future perspectives Editorial review: guidance for future atrial fibrillation research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1