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.
Keywords: DeBakey classification; Subclavian artery cannulation; antegrade perfusion; prosthetic graft replacement.