Background: The choice of arterial inflow for acute Stanford type A aortic dissection repair remains controversial. The axillary artery should be considered as first choice for cannulation, but this technique is time-consuming. The ascending aortic cannulation provides antegrade perfusion and can be performed rapidly but there are several concerns such as aortic rupture, extension of dissection, and false lumen cannulation.

Objective: To compare the establishment time of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and postoperative outcomes of the two cannulation techniques that provide antegrade perfusion, which was direct true lumen cannulation on the dissected ascending aorta using epiaortic ultrasound-guided and axillary artery cannulation in Siriraj Hospital.

Materials and Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed all the 30 cases of acute aortic dissection type A using two different cannulation methods performed between February 2011 and May 2017. Direct true lumen ascending aortic cannulation was performed using the epiaortic ultrasound-guide with Seldinger technique in 12 patients, and axillary artery cannulation was performed in 18 patients.

Results: The direct true lumen ascending aortic cannulation was safely performed in all patients. None of them had aortic rupture. Skin incision to CPB time was significantly faster in the epiaortic ultrasound-guided ascending aortic cannulation group at 29±8 versus 49±14 minutes (p<0.001). The 30-day mortality and postoperative adverse events, such as ischemic stroke, acute kidney injury, visceral organ and limb malperfusion showed no statistically significant difference from the axillary artery cannulation method.

Conclusion: Epiaortic ultrasound-guided true lumen cannulation of ascending aorta in the treatment of acute aortic dissection type A is safe and feasible. Skin incision to CPB time can be performed faster and provided good outcome compared to the axillary artery cannulation technique.

Keywords: Acute aortic dissection, Ascending cannulation, Epiaortic ultrasound

DOI: doi.org/10.35755/jmedassocthai.2021.04.11895

Received 15 September 2020 | Revised 21 December 2020 | Accepted 25 December 2020