XML | Respond to this article | Alert & updates | Request permissions | Email to a friend |
Objective: To evaluate clinical outcomes between different cerebral protection methods during aortic arch surgery.
Materials and Methods: Medical records of aortic aneurysm patients underwent circulatory arrest during the operations between January 2005 and December 2015 were reviewed.
Results: One hundred-thirteen patients underwent circulatory arrest during aortic surgery involving arch were studied. DHCA was employed in all patients. Of these, 79 patients received ACP as an adjunct (ACP group) and 34 patients used only DHCA or combined with RCP (non-ACP group). Duration of circulatory arrest time, bypass time, and cardiac ischemic time were significantly longer in ACP group (44.04±1.7 versus 29.4±1.9 minutes, p<0.001; 215.39±8.4 versus 174.7±12.6 minutes, p = 0.009, and 140.72±7.9 versus 76.78±9.7 minutes, p<0.001, respectively). There was no difference in clinical outcomes between the two groups, including 30-day mortality (14% versus 17.6%, p = 0.61), major stroke (6.3% versus 8.8%, p = 0.63) and minor stroke (10.1% versus 2.9%, p = 0.19).
Conclusion: The superiority of ACP over the other approach of cerebral protection was not proved in the present study. However, it is more likely to use ACP in case of complex arch operation with extended period of circulatory arrest time.
Keywords: Cerebral protection, Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest, Retrograde cerebral perfusion, Antegrade cerebral perfusion