Facilitation of bilateral selective antegrade cerebral perfusion with axillary cannulation and retrograde coronary sinus catheter

Central aortic versus axillary artery cannulation for aortic arch surgery

Objective

Central aortic cannulation for aortic arch surgery has become more popular over the last decade; however, evidence comparing it with axillary artery cannulation remains equivocal. This study compares outcomes of patients who underwent axillary artery and central aortic cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass during arch surgery.

Methods

A retrospective review of 764 patients who underwent aortic arch surgery at our institution between 2005 and 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was failure to achieve uneventful recovery, defined as having experienced at least 1 of the following: in-hospital mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, bleeding requiring reoperation, prolonged ventilation, renal failure, mediastinitis, surgical site infection, and pacemaker or implantable cardiac defibrillator implantation. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences across groups. A subgroup analysis of patients undergoing surgery for aneurysmal disease was performed.

Results

Before matching, the aorta group had more urgent or emergency operations (P = .039), fewer root replacements (P < .001), and more aortic valve replacements (P < .001). After successful matching, there was no difference between the axillary and aorta groups in failure to achieve uneventful recovery, 33% versus 35% (P = .766), in-hospital mortality, 5.3% versus 5.3% (P = 1), or stroke, 8.3% versus 5.3% (P = .264). There were more surgical site infections in the axillary group, 4.8% versus 0.4% (P = .008). Similar results were seen in the aneurysm cohort with no differences in postoperative outcomes between groups.

Conclusions

Aortic cannulation has a safety profile similar to that of axillary arterial cannulation in aortic arch surgery.

Extent of aortic replacement and operative outcome in open proximal thoracic aortic aneurysm repair

Objectives

There are few data to delineate the risk differences among open aortic procedures. We aimed to investigate the influence of the procedural types on the outcomes of proximal thoracic aortic aneurysm repair.

Methods

Among 1900 patients who underwent aortic replacement in our institution between 2005 and 2019, 1132 patients with aortic aneurysm who underwent a graft replacement of proximal thoracic aorta were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on the extent of the aortic replacement: isolated ascending aortic replacement (n = 52); ascending aortic replacement with distal extension with hemiarch, partial arch, or total arch replacement (n = 126); ascending aortic replacement with proximal extension with aortic valve or root replacement (n = 620); and ascending aortic replacement with distal and proximal extension (n = 334). "Eventful recovery," defined as occurrence of any key complications, was used as the primary end point. Odds ratios for inability to achieve uneventful recovery in each procedure were calculated using ascending aortic replacement as a reference.

Results

Overall, in-hospital mortality and stroke occurred in 16 patients (1.4%) and 24 patients (2.1%). Eventful recovery was observed in 19.7% of patients: 11.5% in those with ascending aortic replacement, 36.5% in those with partial arch or total arch replacement, 16.6% in those with proximal extension with aortic valve or root replacement, and 20.4% in those with distal and proximal extension (P < .001). With ascending aortic replacement as the reference, a multivariable logistic regression revealed partial arch or total arch replacement (odds ratio, 10.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-189.5) was an independent risk factor of inability to achieve uneventful recovery.

Conclusions

Open proximal aneurysm repair in the contemporary era resulted in satisfactory in-hospital outcomes. Distal extension was associated with a higher risk for postoperative complications.