Europe PMC

This website requires cookies, and the limited processing of your personal data in order to function. By using the site you are agreeing to this as outlined in our privacy notice and cookie policy.

Single Arterial Cannulation vs. Dual Arterial Cannulation during Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Author information

Affiliations

  • 1. Faculty of Medicine, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
      Authors
    • Altobaishat O 1
    • Bataineh OA 1
    • Al-Zoubi AK 1
    (3 authors)
  • 2. Faculty of Medicine, Menoufia University, Menoufia, Egypt.
      Authors
    • Ibrahim AA 2
    (1 author)
  • 3. Division of Cardiology, University of Maryland, School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.
      Authors
    • Khan U 3
    (1 author)
  • 4. Faculty of Medicine, Ain-shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
      Authors
    • Abdelgalil MS 4
    (1 author)
  • 5. Department of Physical Pharmacy and Pharmacokinetics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland; Doctoral School, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
      Authors
    • Abouzid M 5
    (1 author)
    • Show all (7)

Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 24 Oct 2024, :S1053-0770(24)00805-X
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2024.10.022 PMID: 39551695 

Review

Abstract 

Objective

Acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) is a cardiovascular emergency with high mortality and morbidity. We compared the effects on outcomes of single arterial cannulation (SAC) via axillary, femoral, or ascending aorta with double arterial cannulation (DAC) via axillary and femoral artery during ATAAD repair.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane searches through April 30, 2024. Dichotomous data were pooled using risk ratio (RR), and continuous data were pooled using mean difference (MD), both with a 95% confidence interval (CI), using R version 4.3. The protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024535644).

Results

Our analysis included 7 studies encompassing 3,534 patients. DAC was associated with a significantly longer intensive care unit stay than SAC (MD 0.45 days, 95% CI 0.10, 0.79, p = 0.01). However, there was no significant difference between DAC and SAC in the length of hospital stay (MD 1.39 days, 95% CI -2.70, 5.47, p = 0.51). Also, there was no significant difference between the two approaches in the incidence of stroke (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.77, 1.64, p = 0.55), paraplegia (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.32, 1.07, p = 0.08), or acute kidney injury (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55, 1.24, p = 1.24).

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis shows that during ATAAD repair, DAC was associated with slightly longer intensive care stay, which was of doubtful clinical significance. However, both approaches were comparable for hospital stay, the incidence of stroke, paraplegia, or acute kidney injury.

Implications for clinical practice

Despite comparable overall outcomes, we observed that DAC was associated with higher risks of requiring continuous renal replacement therapy or dialysis, and reintubation. This emphasizes the need to carefully consider cannulation strategies based on patient factors to balance potential benefits and risks.

Full text links 

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2024.10.022