Objective
To investigate whether axillary artery cannulation has supremacy over
innominate artery cannulation in thoracic aortic surgery.
Methods
A comprehensive search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed,
Excerpta Medica dataBASE [EMBASE], Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all
randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing axillary to
innominate artery cannulation in thoracic aortic surgery. Databases were
evaluated and assessed up to March 2017.
Results
Only three studies fulfilled the criteria for this meta-analysis, including
534 patients. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter in the
innominate group (
P
=0.004). However, the innominate group
had significantly higher risk of prolonged intubation > 48 hours
(
P
=0.04) than the axillary group. Further analysis
revealed no significant difference between the innominate and axillary
groups for deep hypothermic circulatory arrest time
(
P
=0.06). The relative risks for temporary and permanent
neurological deficits as well as in-hospital mortality were not
significantly different for both groups (
P
=0.90,
P
=0.49, and
P
=0.55, respectively).
Length of hospital stay was similar for both groups.
Conclusion
There is no superiority of axillary over innominate artery cannulation in
thoracic aortic surgery in terms of perioperative outcomes; however, as the
studies were limited, larger scale comparative studies are required to
provide a solid evidence base for choosing optimal arterial cannulation
site.