Background

Aortic arch disease is a major cause of acute dissections. Surgical replacement is the current curative treatment for aortic arch disease. While traditional aortic cannulation ensures lower body perfusion, axillary cannulation offers optimum cerebral perfusion.

Aim

To evaluate the outcomes of aortic and axillary cannulation methods in hemiarch replacements, focusing on postoperative perfusion and survival.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 91 patients who underwent hemiarch replacement surgery between February 2007 and October 2016. Patients were divided into two groups based on the cannulation method: aortic cannulation (54 patients) and axillary cannulation (37 patients). Data regarding preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters were analyzed, including demographics, surgical outcomes, and complications.

Results

Demographic analysis showed comparable characteristics between the two groups, with notable differences in aortic disease severity and classification. Patients in the axillary group had a larger ascending aorta diameter (57.7 ± 10.8 mm vs. 51.8 ± 5.7 mm, p = 0.002) and a higher prevalence of acute dissections (27.0% (n = 10) vs. 3.7% (n = 2), p = 0.001). Cerebral protection methods varied significantly between the two groups (p < 0.001). Antegrade cerebral perfusion was used in 37.8% (n = 14) of the axillary group compared to 3.7% (n = 2) of the central group. The central cannulation group had a higher proportion of patients with temperatures under 20 °C (98.1% (n = 53) vs. 21.6% (n = 8), p < 0.001), whereas the axillary group maintained higher temperatures (24 –28 °C) in 68.6% (n = 23) of cases. AV repair/replacement was more frequent in the aortic cannulation group (48.2% (n = 26) vs. 18.9% (n = 7), p = 0.013). No significant disparities were observed in operative mortality or intraoperative complications. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between the two groups in the in-hospital outcomes, but renal complications were more prevalent in the axillary cannulation group with 21.6% (n = 8) experiencing acute kidney injury compared to 9.3% (n = 5) in the central group (p = 0.098). The overall survival rate was slightly higher in the aortic cannulation group at various follow-up periods, yet no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups.

Conclusion

We found no significant differences in safety and efficacy between axillary cannulation and aortic cannulation in hemiarch replacement procedures.