ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical efficacy of unilateral antegrade selective cerebral perfusion (UASCP) compared to bilateral antegrade selective cerebral perfusion (BASCP) in aortic surgery.MethodsPubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang Database were searched from establishment of each database to January 2019 to identify clinical studies on prognosis of UASCP versus BASCP in aortic surgery patients. The quality of randomized controlled trials was assessed by Cochrane risk assessement tool. The quality of non-randomized controlled trials was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale ( NOS). Meta-analyses were presented in terms of odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsSixteen eligible studies including 3 randomized controlled trials, 2 propensity matching score studies, and 11 retrospective case control studies including4 490 patients were identified. The 3 randomized controlled trials were with high bias risk. The NOS score of the other 13 studies was more than 6 stars. Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between the UASCP and BASCP groups in terms of permanent neurological dysfunction (PND) (OR=0.93, 95%CI 0.74 to 1.18, P=0.57), temporary neurological dysfunction (TND) (OR=1.26, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.69, P=0.12), acute kidney injury rate (OR=1.11, 95%CI 0.79 to 1.55, P=0.55), 30-day mortality (OR=0.94, 95%CI 0.67 to 1.32, P=0.72), length of ICU stay (OR=–0.64, 95%CI –1.66 to 0.37, P=0.22) and hospital stay (OR=–0.35, 95%CI –2.38 to 1.68, P=0.74).ConclusionThis meta-analysis shows that UASCP and BASCP administration do not result in different mortality and neurologic morbidity rates. However, more studies with good methodologic quality and large sample are still needed to make further assessment.
ObjectiveTo describe the outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients after aortic surgery and to summarize the experience. Methods The clinical data of patients who received ECMO support after aortic surgery in Fuwai Hospital from 2009 to 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients who received an aortic dissection surgery were allocated into a dissection group, and the other patients were allocated into a non-dissection group. The in-hospital and follow-up survival rates were compared between the two groups, and the causes of death were analyzed. ResultsA total of 22 patients were enrolled, including 17 patients in the dissection group [13 males and 4 females, with a median age of 54 (46, 61) years] and 5 patients in the non-dissection group [3 males and 2 females, with a median age of 51 (41, 65) years]. There was no statistical difference in the age and gender between the two groups (P>0.05). The in-hospital survival rate (11.8% vs. 100.0%, P=0.001) and follow-up survival rate (11.8% vs. 80.0%, P=0.009) of the patients in the dissection group were significantly lower than those in the non-dissection group. The causes of death in the dissection group included massive bleeding and disseminated intravascular coagulation (3 patients), ventricular thrombosis (1 patient), irreversible brain injury (2 patients), visceral malperfusion syndrome (4 patients) and irreversible heart failure (5 patients). ConclusionECMO after aortic dissection surgery is associated with high mortality, which is related to the pathological features of aortic dissection and severely disrupted coagulation system after the surgery. For these patients, strict indication selection and optimal management strategy are important.
The treatment of chronic thoracoabdominal aortic dissection aneurysm remains a major challenge in aortic surgery. Open surgery is the mainstream treatment at present. New devices for endovascular treatment of chronic thoracoabdominal aortic dissection are gradually applied in clinical practice. The hybrid procedure is a combination of open and endovascular procedures. The appropriate treatment should be selected according to the patient's age, anatomy, genetic aortic disease, and comorbidities.