Cannula Placement for Cerebral Protection Without Circulatory Arrest in Patients Undergoing Hemiarch Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

IF 0.9 4区 医学
Joseph C Sweeney, Jaimin R Trivedi, Toyokazu Endo, Akhila Ankem, Siddharth V Pahwa, Mark S Slaughter, Brian L Ganzel
{"title":"Cannula Placement for Cerebral Protection Without Circulatory Arrest in Patients Undergoing Hemiarch Aortic Aneurysm Repair.","authors":"Joseph C Sweeney, Jaimin R Trivedi, Toyokazu Endo, Akhila Ankem, Siddharth V Pahwa, Mark S Slaughter, Brian L Ganzel","doi":"10.14503/THIJ-22-8026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Aortic aneurysms involving the proximal aortic arch, which require hemiarch-type repair, typically require circulatory arrest with antegrade cerebral perfusion. Left carotid antegrade cerebral perfusion (LCP) via distal arch cannulation without circulatory arrest was used in this study's patient population. The goal was to assess the operative efficiency and clinical outcomes of using a distal arch cannulation technique that would not require any hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA) time compared with more traditional brachiocephalic artery cannulation with right-sided unilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion (RCP) and HCA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center retrospective review of patients with replacement of the distal ascending aorta involving the proximal arch was performed. Patients with an intramural hematoma or dissection were excluded. Between January 2015 and December 2019, 68 adult patients had undergone a hemiarch repair because of aneurysmal disease. Analysis of baseline demographics, operative data, and clinical outcomes was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Comparing the 68 patients: 21 patients were treated with RCP (via brachiocephalic artery graft with HCA), and 47 patients were treated with LCP (via distal aortic arch cannulation with cross-clamp between the brachiocephalic and left common carotid arteries without HCA). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were evaluated for both groups. The LCP group was younger (LCP median [IQR] age, 60 [53-65] years vs RCP median [IQR] age, 67 [59-71] years]. Sex, race, body mass index, comorbidities, and ejection fraction were similar between the groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass time (LCP, 123 minutes vs RCP, 149 minutes) and unilateral cerebral perfusion time (LCP, 17 minutes vs RCP, 22 minutes) were longer in the RCP group. Bleeding, prolonged ventilatory support, kidney failure, and length of stay were similar. In-hospital mortality was 2% in the LCP group vs 0% in the RCP group. Stroke occurred in 2 patients (4.2%) in the LCP group and in 0% of the RCP group. Mortality at 6 months in the LCP and RCP groups was 3% and 10%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Distal arch cannulation with LCP without HCA is a reasonable and safe alternative strategy for patients requiring hemiarch replacement for aneurysmal disease. This technique may provide additional benefits by avoiding circulatory arrest in these complex cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":48680,"journal":{"name":"Texas Heart Institute Journal","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11075151/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas Heart Institute Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14503/THIJ-22-8026","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Aortic aneurysms involving the proximal aortic arch, which require hemiarch-type repair, typically require circulatory arrest with antegrade cerebral perfusion. Left carotid antegrade cerebral perfusion (LCP) via distal arch cannulation without circulatory arrest was used in this study's patient population. The goal was to assess the operative efficiency and clinical outcomes of using a distal arch cannulation technique that would not require any hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA) time compared with more traditional brachiocephalic artery cannulation with right-sided unilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion (RCP) and HCA.

Methods: A single-center retrospective review of patients with replacement of the distal ascending aorta involving the proximal arch was performed. Patients with an intramural hematoma or dissection were excluded. Between January 2015 and December 2019, 68 adult patients had undergone a hemiarch repair because of aneurysmal disease. Analysis of baseline demographics, operative data, and clinical outcomes was performed.

Results: Comparing the 68 patients: 21 patients were treated with RCP (via brachiocephalic artery graft with HCA), and 47 patients were treated with LCP (via distal aortic arch cannulation with cross-clamp between the brachiocephalic and left common carotid arteries without HCA). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were evaluated for both groups. The LCP group was younger (LCP median [IQR] age, 60 [53-65] years vs RCP median [IQR] age, 67 [59-71] years]. Sex, race, body mass index, comorbidities, and ejection fraction were similar between the groups. Cardiopulmonary bypass time (LCP, 123 minutes vs RCP, 149 minutes) and unilateral cerebral perfusion time (LCP, 17 minutes vs RCP, 22 minutes) were longer in the RCP group. Bleeding, prolonged ventilatory support, kidney failure, and length of stay were similar. In-hospital mortality was 2% in the LCP group vs 0% in the RCP group. Stroke occurred in 2 patients (4.2%) in the LCP group and in 0% of the RCP group. Mortality at 6 months in the LCP and RCP groups was 3% and 10%, respectively.

Conclusion: Distal arch cannulation with LCP without HCA is a reasonable and safe alternative strategy for patients requiring hemiarch replacement for aneurysmal disease. This technique may provide additional benefits by avoiding circulatory arrest in these complex cases.

在接受半弓主动脉瘤修补术的患者中植入插管以保护大脑而无需停止循环。
背景:涉及主动脉弓近端、需要半弓型修复的主动脉瘤通常需要停循环并进行逆行脑灌注。本研究在患者中采用了通过远端主动脉弓插管进行左侧颈动脉逆行脑灌注(LCP),无需停循环。目的是评估与更传统的右侧单侧前向脑灌注(RCP)和 HCA 的肱动脉插管相比,无需低体温停循环(HCA)时间的远端足弓插管技术的手术效率和临床效果:对涉及近端弓的远端升主动脉置换患者进行了单中心回顾性研究。排除了有壁内血肿或夹层的患者。2015年1月至2019年12月期间,68名成年患者因动脉瘤疾病接受了半弓修补术。对基线人口统计学、手术数据和临床结果进行了分析:对 68 名患者进行了比较:结果:对 68 名患者进行了比较:21 名患者接受了 RCP(通过带 HCA 的肱动脉移植)治疗,47 名患者接受了 LCP(通过主动脉弓远端插管,交叉夹闭肱动脉和左侧颈总动脉,不带 HCA)治疗。对两组患者的基线特征和疗效进行了评估。LCP 组较年轻(LCP 中位[IQR]年龄为 60 [53-65] 岁 vs RCP 中位[IQR]年龄为 67 [59-71] 岁)。两组患者的性别、种族、体重指数、合并症和射血分数相似。RCP组的心肺旁路时间(LCP,123分钟 vs RCP,149分钟)和单侧脑灌注时间(LCP,17分钟 vs RCP,22分钟)更长。出血、呼吸机支持时间延长、肾衰竭和住院时间相似。LCP 组的院内死亡率为 2%,而 RCP 组为 0%。LCP 组有 2 名患者(4.2%)发生中风,而 RCP 组为 0%。LCP组和RCP组6个月的死亡率分别为3%和10%:对于因动脉瘤疾病需要进行半弓置换术的患者来说,使用 LCP 进行远端弓插管而不使用 HCA 是一种合理而安全的替代策略。在这些复杂病例中,该技术可避免循环骤停,从而带来更多益处。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Texas Heart Institute Journal
Texas Heart Institute Journal CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
自引率
11.10%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: For more than 45 years, the Texas Heart Institute Journal has been published by the Texas Heart Institute as part of its medical education program. Our bimonthly peer-reviewed journal enjoys a global audience of physicians, scientists, and healthcare professionals who are contributing to the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cardiovascular disease. The Journal was printed under the name of Cardiovascular Diseases from 1974 through 1981 (ISSN 0093-3546). The name was changed to Texas Heart Institute Journal in 1982 and was printed through 2013 (ISSN 0730-2347). In 2014, the Journal moved to online-only publication. It is indexed by Index Medicus/MEDLINE and by other indexing and abstracting services worldwide. Our full archive is available at PubMed Central. The Journal invites authors to submit these article types for review: -Clinical Investigations- Laboratory Investigations- Reviews- Techniques- Coronary Anomalies- History of Medicine- Case Reports/Case Series (Submission Fee: $70.00 USD)- Images in Cardiovascular Medicine (Submission Fee: $35.00 USD)- Guest Editorials- Peabody’s Corner- Letters to the Editor
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信