OBJECTIVE: Selection of a brain protection method is a primary concern for aortic arch surgery. We performed a retrospective study to compare the respective advantages and disadvantages of retrograde cerebral perfusion (RCP) and selective cerebral perfusion (SCP) in patients who underwent surgery for acute type A aortic dissection. METHODS: The study reviewed 166 patients who underwent surgery at Nagoya University or its eight branch hospitals between January 1990 and August 1996. There were 91 patients who received SCP and 75 patients who underwent RCP. Results for these two groups were compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, gender, Marfan syndrome rate, DeBakey classification, or emergency operation rate. Rates of various preoperative complications were similar except for aortic valve regurgitation. Arch replacement was performed more often in SCP than in RCP patients (49% vs. 27%, P = 0.0028). There were no significant differences between groups in cardiac ischemic time or visceral organ ischemic time. However, RCP group showed shorter cardio-pulmonary bypass time (297+/-99 vs. 269+/-112 min, P = 0.013) and lower the lowest core temperature (21.6+/-3.1 degrees C vs. 18.7+/-2.1 degrees C, P = 0.0001). SCP duration was longer than RCP duration (103+/-56 vs. 54+/-24 min, P < 0.0001). Despite these differences, RCP patients were not significantly different from SCP patients with regard to any postoperative complication, neurological dysfunction (16 vs. 19%), or operative mortality (all deaths within the hospitalization; 24 vs. 21%). Regarding neurologic dysfunction, there were six cases of coma, six of motor paralysis, two of paraplegia and one of visual loss among SCP patients, and eight cases of coma, three of motor paralysis, and three of convulsion in the RCP group. The incidence of motor paralysis was higher in the SCP group, while the incidence of coma was higher in the RCP group. CONCLUSIONS: RCP can be performed without clamping or cannulation of the cervical arteries, which is an advantage in reducing the chances of arterial injury or cerebral embolization. RCP is comparable to SCP in terms of clinical outcome.
OBJECTIVE: Selection of a brain protection method is a primary concern for aortic arch surgery. We performed a retrospective study to compare the respective advantages and disadvantages of retrograde cerebral perfusion (RCP) and selective cerebral perfusion (SCP) in patients who underwent surgery for acute type A aortic dissection. METHODS: The study reviewed 166 patients who underwent surgery at Nagoya University or its eight branch hospitals between January 1990 and August 1996. There were 91 patients who received SCP and 75 patients who underwent RCP. Results for these two groups were compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, gender, Marfan syndrome rate, DeBakey classification, or emergency operation rate. Rates of various preoperative complications were similar except for aortic valve regurgitation. Arch replacement was performed more often in SCP than in RCPpatients (49% vs. 27%, P = 0.0028). There were no significant differences between groups in cardiac ischemic time or visceral organ ischemic time. However, RCP group showed shorter cardio-pulmonary bypass time (297+/-99 vs. 269+/-112 min, P = 0.013) and lower the lowest core temperature (21.6+/-3.1 degrees C vs. 18.7+/-2.1 degrees C, P = 0.0001). SCP duration was longer than RCP duration (103+/-56 vs. 54+/-24 min, P < 0.0001). Despite these differences, RCPpatients were not significantly different from SCPpatients with regard to any postoperative complication, neurological dysfunction (16 vs. 19%), or operative mortality (all deaths within the hospitalization; 24 vs. 21%). Regarding neurologic dysfunction, there were six cases of coma, six of motor paralysis, two of paraplegia and one of visual loss among SCPpatients, and eight cases of coma, three of motor paralysis, and three of convulsion in the RCP group. The incidence of motor paralysis was higher in the SCP group, while the incidence of coma was higher in the RCP group. CONCLUSIONS:RCP can be performed without clamping or cannulation of the cervical arteries, which is an advantage in reducing the chances of arterial injury or cerebral embolization. RCP is comparable to SCP in terms of clinical outcome.
Authors: Sotiris C Stamou; Laura A Rausch; Nicholas T Kouchoukos; Kevin W Lobdell; Kamal Khabbaz; Edward Murphy; Robert C Hagberg Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2016-07
Authors: H Akashi; K Tayama; T Fujino; S Fukunaga; A Tanaka; S Hayashi; S Tobinaga; S Onitsuka; H Sakashita; S Aoyagi Journal: Jpn J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2000-12