TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of direct aortic and femoral cannulation for port-access cardiac operations
AU - Glower, Donald D.
AU - Clements, Fiona M.
AU - Debruijn, Norbert P.
AU - Stafford-Smith, Mark
AU - Davis, R. Duane
AU - Landolfo, Kevin P.
AU - Smith, Peter K.
N1 - Funding Information:
Dr Glower has received an honorarium from, and Dr Stafford-Smith has received a research grant from Heartport, Inc (Redwood City, CA).
PY - 1999/10
Y1 - 1999/10
N2 - Background. Differences in outcome after direct aortic cannulation (AORT) in the chest versus standard femoral arterial cannulation (FEM) have not been defined for minimally invasive cardiac operations utilizing the port-access approach. Methods. A retrospective study was performed of 165 patients undergoing port-access cardiac mitral valve operation (n = 126) or coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 39). In 113 patients, FEM was used, while in 52 patients, AORT was accomplished through a port in the first intercostal space. Results. AORT eliminated endoaortic balloon clamp migration (0/36 [0%] vs 17/95 [18%]), and groin wound or femoral arterial complications (0/52 [0%] vs 11/113 [10%]) without changing procedure times (363 ± 55 vs 355 ±70 minutes). Complications attributable to AORT were injury to the fight internal mammary artery and aortic cannulation site bleeding in 1 patient each. Conclusions. Direct aortic cannulation is technically easy, allows use of an endoaortic clamp, and avoids aorto-iliac arterial disease, the groin incision, and possible femoral arterial injury associated with femoral arterial cannulation. Direct arterial cannulation should expand the pool of patients eligible for port-access operation, and may become the standard for port-access procedures.
AB - Background. Differences in outcome after direct aortic cannulation (AORT) in the chest versus standard femoral arterial cannulation (FEM) have not been defined for minimally invasive cardiac operations utilizing the port-access approach. Methods. A retrospective study was performed of 165 patients undergoing port-access cardiac mitral valve operation (n = 126) or coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 39). In 113 patients, FEM was used, while in 52 patients, AORT was accomplished through a port in the first intercostal space. Results. AORT eliminated endoaortic balloon clamp migration (0/36 [0%] vs 17/95 [18%]), and groin wound or femoral arterial complications (0/52 [0%] vs 11/113 [10%]) without changing procedure times (363 ± 55 vs 355 ±70 minutes). Complications attributable to AORT were injury to the fight internal mammary artery and aortic cannulation site bleeding in 1 patient each. Conclusions. Direct aortic cannulation is technically easy, allows use of an endoaortic clamp, and avoids aorto-iliac arterial disease, the groin incision, and possible femoral arterial injury associated with femoral arterial cannulation. Direct arterial cannulation should expand the pool of patients eligible for port-access operation, and may become the standard for port-access procedures.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032739935&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032739935&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0003-4975(99)00950-9
DO - 10.1016/S0003-4975(99)00950-9
M3 - Article
C2 - 10543561
AN - SCOPUS:0032739935
SN - 0003-4975
VL - 68
SP - 1529
EP - 1531
JO - Annals of Thoracic Surgery
JF - Annals of Thoracic Surgery
IS - 4
ER -