ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2021
Double arterial cannulation versus right axillary artery cannulation for acute type A aortic dissection: a retrospective study.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Double arterial vs. single axillary cannulation in acute type A aortic dissections: a meta-analysis.Future cardiology · 2024Pooled it
- Endoscopic mitral and tricuspid valve repair in a patient with dextrocardia, hypoplastic right lung, and scimitar syndrome: a case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
- Reduction of maximal false lumen area ratio by interactive cannulation perfusion in DeBakey type I acute aortic dissection repair.Journal of cardiovascular and thoracic research · 2025Article
- Comparison of outcomes between axillary and femoral artery cannulation for type A aortic dissection surgery.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Application of a modified perfusion strategy via anastomosis of the innominate artery with a 10-mm artificial vascular graft in acute type A aortic dissection.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing Different Cannulation Strategies in Type A Aortic Dissection Surgery: 20-year Single-Center Experience in a Referral Center.Aorta (Stamford, Conn.) · 2024Article
- Reoperative approach after extra-anatomic ascending-to-descending aortic bypass graft.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Cannulation Strategies in Type A Aortic Dissection: Overlooked Details and Novel Approaches.Cureus · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCannulation strategy in surgery for acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) remains controversial. We aimed to retrospectively analyze the safety and efficacy of double arterial cannulation (DAC) compared with right axillary cannulation (RAC) for ATAAD.
methodsFrom January 2016 to December 2018, 431 ATAAD patients were enrolled in the study. Patients were divided into DAC group (n = 341) and RAC group (n = 90). Propensity score matching analysis was performed to compare the early and mid-term outcomes between these two groups. To confirm the organ protection effect by DAC, intraoperative blood gas results and cardiopulmonary bypass parameters were compared between the two groups.
resultsDemographics and preoperative comorbidities were comparable between two groups, while patients in DAC group were younger than RAC group (51.55 ± 13.21 vs. 56.07 ± 12.16 years, P < 0.001). DAC had a higher incidence of limb malperfusion (18.2% vs. 10.0%, P = 0.063) and lower incidence of coronary malperfusion (5.3% vs. 12.2%, P = 0.019). No significant difference in cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time was found between the two groups. The in-hospital mortality was 13.5% (58/431), while there was no difference between the two groups (13.5% vs. 13.3%; P = 0.969). Patients who underwent DAC had higher incidence of postoperative stroke (5.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.019) and lower incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) (24.7% vs. 40.3%; P = 0.015). During a mean follow-up period of 31.8 (interquartile range, 25-45) months, the overall survival was 81.5% for DAC group and 78.0% for RAC group (P = 0.560). Intraoperative blood gas results and cardiopulmonary bypass parameters showed that DAC group had more intraoperative urine output volume than RAC group (P = 0.05), and the time of cooling (P = 0.04) and rewarming (P = 0.04) were shorter in DAC group.
conclusionsDAC will not increase the surgical risks compared to RAC, but could reduce the incidence of postoperative AKI which may be benefit for renal protection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.