Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39076469›Full record

SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024

Central (Aortic) Cannulation versus Peripheral (Axillary or Femoral) Cannulation in Acute Type A Aortic Dissections: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.

Jiawang Ma, Hong Wang, Xiaomeng Wang, Xiaotong Hou

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jiawang MaCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, 100054 Beijing, China.
Hong WangCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, 100054 Beijing, China.
Xiaomeng WangCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, 100054 Beijing, China.
Xiaotong HouCenter for Cardiac Intensive Care, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, 100054 Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There has been an increased interest in using antegrade cannulation techniques during surgery for type A aortic dissection. While the utilization of central artery cannulation has been on the rise in recent times, its effectiveness and safety still require thorough examination. This study aimed to explore both the efficiency and safety of central arterial cannulation. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted on studies that evaluated surgical outcomes when using central artery cannulation (CAC) in comparison to axillary artery cannulation (AXC) or femoral artery cannulation (FAC). Results: 10 retrospective observational studies were included, enrolling 3022 patients (CAC = 1208 vs. FAC = 606; CAC = 1051 vs. AXC = 1119). Among these, 4 articles involved axillary artery cannulation, femoral artery cannulation, and central artery cannulation. Central cannulation was linked to decreased short-term mortality [odds ratio, 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.48, 0.89), Conclusions: This meta-analysis reveals that central cannulation surpasses femoral cannulation in lowering short-term mortality and the occurrence of TND among patients undergoing surgery for type A acute aortic dissection. However, central cannulation does not exhibit a higher mortality and TND compared to axillary cannulation.

Indexed as

aortic cannulationaxillary cannulationfemoral cannulationstroketemporary neurological dysfunctiontype A aortic dissection

Identifiers

PMID39076469
PMCPMC11267197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.