In thoracic aortic surgery, is innominate artery cannulation a safe and effective alternative to axillary artery cannulation?

Abstract

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was: in a patient undergoing thoracic aortic surgery, is innominate artery cannulation superior to axillary artery cannulation in terms of postoperative outcomes? Five hundred and thirty-one papers were found using the reported search strategy, of which 5 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. A total of 1338 participants were included across the 5 studies. Seven hundred and twenty-two patients were cannulated via the axillary artery and 616 were cannulated via the innominate artery. The included 5 studies were 2 prospective observational cohorts, 2 retrospective case-series analysis and a single-blinded randomized trial. Thirty-day or in-hospital mortality rates were reported in all 5 studies. There were no significant differences in mortality with innominate artery cannulation compared to axillary artery cannulation (P\u2009>\u20090.05), with slightly lower mortality rates in 2 studies, slightly higher mortality rates in 2 and equal in 1 study. Though statistical significance was not demonstrated (P\u2009>\u20090.05), a stroke occurred slightly less frequently in patients receiving innominate artery cannulation compared to axillary artery cannulation in 3 of the 4 studies. Innominate artery cannulation is non-inferior to axillary artery cannulation for thoracic aortic surgery, with a similar level of neuroprotection and is not associated with increased levels of mortality.