Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2021
Double arterial cannulation versus right axillary artery cannulation for acute type A aortic dissection: a retrospective study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang He, Xie Wei, Lu Yuzhou, Pan Tuo, Zhou Qing, Xue Yunxing, Wang Dongjin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cannulation strategy in surgery for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) remains controversial. We aimed to retrospectively analyze the safety and efficacy of double arterial cannulation (DAC) compared with right axillary cannulation (RAC) for ATAAD.
METHODS: From January 2016 to December 2018, 431 ATAAD patients were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into DAC group (n = 341) and RAC group (n = 90). Propensity score matching analysis was performed to compare the early and mid-term outcomes between these two groups. To confirm the organ protection effect by DAC, intraoperative blood gas results and cardiopulmonary bypass parameters were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Demographics and preoperative comorbidities were comparable between two groups, while patients in DAC group were younger than RAC group (51.55 ± 13.21 vs. 56.07 ± 12.16 years, P < 0.001). DAC had a higher incidence of limb malperfusion (18.2% vs. 10.0%, P = 0.063) and lower incidence of coronary malperfusion (5.3% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.019). No significant difference in cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time was found between the two groups. The in-hospital mortality was 13.5% (58/431), while there was no difference between the two groups (13.5% vs. 13.3%; P = 0.969). Patients who underwent DAC had higher incidence of postoperative stroke (5.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.019) and lower incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) (24.7% vs. 40.3%; P = 0.015). During a mean follow-up period of 31.8 (interquartile range, 25-45) months, the overall survival was 81.5% for DAC group and 78.0% for RAC group (P = 0.560). Intraoperative blood gas results and cardiopulmonary bypass parameters showed that DAC group had more intraoperative urine output volume than RAC group (P = 0.05), and the time of cooling (P = 0.04) and rewarming (P = 0.04) were shorter in DAC group.
CONCLUSIONS: DAC will not increase the surgical risks compared to RAC, but could reduce the incidence of postoperative AKI which may be benefit for renal protection.
METHODS: From January 2016 to December 2018, 431 ATAAD patients were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into DAC group (n = 341) and RAC group (n = 90). Propensity score matching analysis was performed to compare the early and mid-term outcomes between these two groups. To confirm the organ protection effect by DAC, intraoperative blood gas results and cardiopulmonary bypass parameters were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: Demographics and preoperative comorbidities were comparable between two groups, while patients in DAC group were younger than RAC group (51.55 ± 13.21 vs. 56.07 ± 12.16 years, P < 0.001). DAC had a higher incidence of limb malperfusion (18.2% vs. 10.0%, P = 0.063) and lower incidence of coronary malperfusion (5.3% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.019). No significant difference in cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time was found between the two groups. The in-hospital mortality was 13.5% (58/431), while there was no difference between the two groups (13.5% vs. 13.3%; P = 0.969). Patients who underwent DAC had higher incidence of postoperative stroke (5.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.019) and lower incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) (24.7% vs. 40.3%; P = 0.015). During a mean follow-up period of 31.8 (interquartile range, 25-45) months, the overall survival was 81.5% for DAC group and 78.0% for RAC group (P = 0.560). Intraoperative blood gas results and cardiopulmonary bypass parameters showed that DAC group had more intraoperative urine output volume than RAC group (P = 0.05), and the time of cooling (P = 0.04) and rewarming (P = 0.04) were shorter in DAC group.
CONCLUSIONS: DAC will not increase the surgical risks compared to RAC, but could reduce the incidence of postoperative AKI which may be benefit for renal protection.