Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Central aortic cannulation for aortic arch surgery has become more popular over the last decade; however, evidence comparing it with axillary artery cannulation remains equivocal. This study compares outcomes of patients who underwent axillary artery and central aortic cannulation for cardiopulmonary bypass during arch surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of 764 patients who underwent aortic arch surgery at our institution between 2005 and 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was failure to achieve uneventful recovery, defined as having experienced at least 1 of the following: in-hospital mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, bleeding requiring reoperation, prolonged ventilation, renal failure, mediastinitis, surgical site infection, and pacemaker or implantable cardiac defibrillator implantation. Propensity score matching was used to account for baseline differences across groups. A subgroup analysis of patients undergoing surgery for aneurysmal disease was performed. RESULTS: Before matching, the aorta group had more urgent or emergency operations (P = .039), fewer root replacements (P < .001), and more aortic valve replacements (P < .001). After successful matching, there was no difference between the axillary and aorta groups in failure to achieve uneventful recovery, 33% versus 35% (P = .766), in-hospital mortality, 5.3% versus 5.3% (P = 1), or stroke, 8.3% versus 5.3% (P = .264). There were more surgical site infections in the axillary group, 4.8% versus 0.4% (P = .008). Similar results were seen in the aneurysm cohort with no differences in postoperative outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic cannulation has a safety profile similar to that of axillary arterial cannulation in aortic arch surgery.