Unilateral versus bilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion during surgical repair for patients with acute type A aortic dissection

Abstract

ObjectivesTo compare unilateral versus bilateral antegrade cerebral perfusion (ACP) techniques on cerebral protection during acute type A aortic dissection repair. MethodsUsing an institutional database, we retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent acute type A aortic dissection repair with selective ACP techniques from October 2008 to December 2019. Primary end point was the detection of neurologic dysfunctions. The secondary end point was mortality. For baseline adjustment, the propensity score matching method was used. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the predictor of neurologic events. ResultsAmong 522 patients (aged 62.0 ± 14.9 years; 45.7% women), unilateral and bilateral ACP techniques were used in 357 (64.7%) and 165 (35.3%) patients, respectively. Transient (19.6% vs 21.2%; P = .65) and permanent (7.0% vs 10.3%; P = .70) neurologic dysfunction rates were not significantly different in patients with unilateral versus bilateral ACP, respectively. Observed mortality rate was higher in the patients with bilateral ACP (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.33-3.14; P = .001). Propensity-score matching yielded 94 pairs of patients. In matched analysis, bilateral ACP did not significantly lower the risks for transient (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.42-1.81; P = .71) and permanent (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.55-3.85; P = .47) neurologic dysfunction or death (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.87-3.15; P = .13). In the multivariable analysis, the ACP technique was not significantly associated with perioperative neurologic deficit. ConclusionsDespite additional supply, the patients undergoing bilateral ACP during acute type A aortic dissection repair did not have superior outcomes in neurologic and death events compared with the patients undergoing unilateral ACP.