Aortic and Arch Branch Vessel Cannulation in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Repair

Central versus peripheral cannulation for acute type A aortic dissection: A meta-analysis of over 14,000 patients

OBJECTIVE

The optimal cannulation strategy for patients with acute type A aortic dissections (ATAAD) is unclear.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed to identify all studies comparing aortic and non-aortic cannulation in patients undergoing ATAAD repair. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The secondary endpoints were operative mortality, postoperative stroke, renal failure, renal replacement therapy, paraplegia, and mesenteric ischemia. Pooled meta-analyses with aggregated and reconstructed time-to-event data were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included (aortic: 3904; non-aortic: 10,719). Ten-year overall survival was 61.1 ​% and 58.4 ​% for aortic and non-aortic cannulation, respectively (HR 1.07; 95 ​% CI 0.92-1.25; p ​= ​0.38). No statistically significant difference was observed for operative mortality (p ​= ​0.10), stroke (p ​= ​0.89), renal failure (p ​= ​0.83), or renal replacement therapy (p ​= ​0.77).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing surgery for ATAAD can undergo aortic cannulation with similar outcomes to those who undergo non-aortic cannulation.

Aortic versus axillary cannulation in acute type A aortic dissection repair: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Research comparing the effectiveness of central aortic cannulation to axillary artery cannulation in repairing acute type A aortic dissection is limited and controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare early outcomes of central aortic cannulation versus axillary artery cannulation for surgery for acute aortic dissection type A.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic search was conducted across PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to September 1, 2023. The primary endpoints were operative mortality and incidence of postoperative stroke. Secondary endpoints encompassed cardiopulmonary bypass time, myocardial ischemic time, hypothermic circulatory arrest time, postoperative temporary neurological dysfunction, combination of stroke and temporary neurological dysfunction, as well as the need for reexploration for bleeding, renal replacement therapy, and tracheotomy. A random-effect model was utilized to calculate the pooled effect size.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met our eligibility criteria, enrolling a total of 7204 patients (2760 underwent aortic cannulation and 4444 underwent axillary cannulation). The operative mortality and incidence of postoperative stroke did not show statistical differences between the two groups, with a pooled odds ratio of 1.07 (95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.55) and 1.17 (0.95-1.42), respectively. Similarly, none of the secondary endpoints exhibited significant statistical differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic cannulation can be a viable alternative to axillary artery cannulation for repair of acute aortic dissection type A, as both approaches present similar early clinical outcomes.

Central (Aortic) Cannulation versus Peripheral (Axillary or Femoral) Cannulation in Acute Type A Aortic Dissections: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

Background

There has been an increased interest in using antegrade cannulation techniques during surgery for type A aortic dissection. While the utilization of central artery cannulation has been on the rise in recent times, its effectiveness and safety still require thorough examination. This study aimed to explore both the efficiency and safety of central arterial cannulation.

Methods

A meta-analysis was conducted on studies that evaluated surgical outcomes when using central artery cannulation (CAC) in comparison to axillary artery cannulation (AXC) or femoral artery cannulation (FAC).

Results

10 retrospective observational studies were included, enrolling 3022 patients (CAC = 1208 vs. FAC = 606; CAC = 1051 vs. AXC = 1119). Among these, 4 articles involved axillary artery cannulation, femoral artery cannulation, and central artery cannulation. Central cannulation was linked to decreased short-term mortality [odds ratio, 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.48, 0.89), χ 2 = 3.27, p = 0.007; I 2 = 0; p = 0.86] compared to femoral cannulation. Additionally, central cannulation was associated with a lower occurrence of temporary neurological dysfunction (TND) [odds ratio, 0.57, 95% CI (0.38, 0.85), χ 2 = 0.88, p = 0.006; I 2 = 0%, p = 0.83] when compared with femoral cannulation. However, there was no statistical significance in mortality and TND between the central cannulation and axillary cannulation groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis reveals that central cannulation surpasses femoral cannulation in lowering short-term mortality and the occurrence of TND among patients undergoing surgery for type A acute aortic dissection. However, central cannulation does not exhibit a higher mortality and TND compared to axillary cannulation.

Direct aortic cannulation versus femoral arterial cannulation for early outcomes in acute type A aortic dissection: A study-level meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of direct aortic cannulation (DAC) versus femoral arterial cannulation (FAC) on clinical outcomes of surgery for acute type A aortic dissection.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until August 25, 2023, to conduct a meta-analysis. Primary endpoints of the study were operative mortality and postoperative stroke. Secondary endpoints were cardiopulmonary bypass time, myocardial ischemic time, hypothermic circulatory arrest time, temporary neurological dysfunction (TND), combined stroke and TND, re-exploration for bleeding, and need for renal replacement therapy. A random-effect model was used to estimate the pooled effect size, and a leave-one-out method was used for the primary endpoints for sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

15 studies met our eligibility criteria, including a total of 7941 samples. Operative mortality was significantly lower in the DAC group with a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.85)]. Incidence of postoperative stroke was also lower in the DAC group with a pooled OR of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.66-0.94). However, after excluding one study with the greatest weight, the difference became nonsignificant. DAC was also associated with a lower incidence of postoperative TND, and re-exploration for bleeding with a pooled OR of 0.52 (95% CI: 0.37-0.73), and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.47-0.77), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that patients who underwent ATAAD repair with DAC had a lower incidence of operative mortality, postoperative stroke, TND, and re-exploration for bleeding compared to those who underwent FAC.

Machine learning and decision making in aortic arch repair

BACKGROUND

Decision making during aortic arch surgery regarding cannulation strategy and nadir temperature are important in reducing risk, and there is a need to determine the best individualized strategy in a data-driven fashion. Using machine learning (ML), we modeled the risk of death or stroke in elective aortic arch surgery based on patient characteristics and intraoperative decisions.

METHODS

The study cohort comprised 1323 patients from 9 institutions who underwent an elective aortic arch procedure between 2002 and 2021. A total of 69 variables were used in developing a logistic regression and XGBoost ML model trained for binary classification of mortality and stroke. Shapely additive explanations (SHAP) values were studied to determine the importance of intraoperative decisions.

RESULTS

During the study period, 3.9% of patients died and 5.4% experienced stroke. XGBoost (area under the curve [AUC], 0.77 for death, 0.87 for stroke) demonstrated better discrimination than logistic regression (AUC, 0.65 for death, 0.75 for stroke). From SHAP analysis, intraoperative decisions are 3 of the top 20 predictors of death and 6 of the top 20 predictors of stroke. Predictor weights are patient-specific and reflect the patient's preoperative characteristics and other intraoperative decisions. Patient-level simulation also demonstrates the variable contribution of each decision in the context of the other choices that are made.

CONCLUSIONS

Using ML, we can more accurately identify patients at risk of death and stroke, as well as the strategy that better reduces the risk of adverse events compared to traditional prediction models. Operative decisions made may be tailored based on a patient's specific characteristics, allowing for maximized, personalized benefit.

Cannulation Strategies in Type A Aortic Dissection: Overlooked Details and Novel Approaches

Aortic dissection type A is a life-threatening condition that frequently necessitates surgical intervention. This review focuses on central aortic cannulation, arch branch vessel (ABV) cannulation, and proximal arch cannulation as key techniques during aortic surgery. It discusses innovative solutions for addressing these challenges. The review synthesizes findings from recent studies and emphasizes the significance of meticulous planning and execution of cannulation in aortic dissection repair. This review aims to contribute to the advancement of surgical practices and the enhancement of patient outcomes in the management of type A aortic dissection (AAD) by addressing these frequently overlooked details.

Systematic Innominate Artery Cannulation Strategy in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: Better Perfusion, Better Results

(1) Background: Arterial cannulation in type A acute aortic dissection (TAAAD) is still subject to debate. We describe a systematic approach of using the innominate artery for arterial perfusion (2) Methods: The hospital records of 110 consecutive patients with acute TAAAD operated on between January 2014 and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The effect of the cannulation site on early and late mortality, as well as on cardio-pulmonary perfusion indices (lactate and base excess levels, and cooling and rewarming speed) were investigated. (3) Results: There was a significant difference in early mortality (8.82% vs. 40.79%, p < 0.01) but no difference in long-term survival beyond the first 30 days. Using the innominate artery enabled the use of approximately 20% higher CPB flows (2.73 ± 0.1 vs. 2.42 ± 0.06 L/min/m² BSA, p < 0.01), which resulted in more rapid cooling (1.89 ± 0.77 vs. 3.13 ± 1.62 min/°C/m² BSA, p < 0.01), rewarming (2.84 ± 1.36 vs. 4.22 ± 2.23, p < 0.01), lower mean base excess levels during CPB (-5.01 ± 2.99 mEq/L vs. -6.66 ± 3.37 mEq/L, p = 0.01) and lower lactate levels at the end of the procedure (4.02 ± 2.48 mmol/L vs. 6.63 ± 4.17 mmol/L, p < 0.01). Postoperative permanent neurologic insult (3.12% vs. 20%, p = 0.02) and acute kidney injury (3.12% vs. 32.81%, p < 0.01) were significantly reduced. (4) Conclusions: systematic use of the innominate artery enables better perfusion and superior results in TAAAD repair.