Background: Although many reports have detailed the advantages and disadvantages between femoral and subclavian arterial cannulations for acute aortic dissection type A (AADA), the confounding factors caused by disease severity and surgical procedures could not be completely eliminated. We compared femoral and subclavian artery cannulation and report the results for reconstruction of only the ascending aorta.
Methods: From January 2003 to December 2010, 51 AADA cases involving reconstruction of only the ascending aorta were retrospectively reviewed and categorised on the basis of femoral (n = 26, 51%) or subclavian (n = 25, 49%) artery cannulation. Bentall's procedures, arch reconstruction and hybrid operations with stent-grafts were all excluded to avoid confounding factors due to dissection severity. Surgical results, postoperative mortality, and short- and mid-term outcomes were compared between the groups.
Results: Subclavian cannulation had a lower incidence of cerebral and myocardial injury and lower hospital mortality than femoral cannulation (8 vs 34%, p = 0.04). Ventilation duration as well as intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay were also shorter with subclavian cannulation. Risk factors for hospital mortality included pre-operative respiratory failure (odds ratio: 12.84), peri-operative cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time gt; 200 minutes (odds ratio: 13.49), postoperative acidosis (pH < 7.2, odds ratio: 88.63), and troponin I > 2.0 ng/ml (odds ratio: 20.08). The overall hospital mortality rate was 21%. The 40 survivors were followed up for three years with survival of 75% at one year and 70% at three years.
Conclusions: Our results show that subclavian cannulation had a lower incidence of cerebral and myocardial injury as well as better postoperative recovery and lower hospital mortality rates for reconstruction of only the ascending aorta.