There is a trend towards using the axillary artery cannulation (AXC) site for cardiopulmonary bypass surgery in @entity1 requiring acute @entity1129 aortic dissection (AAD) repair. However, AXC has not been established as a routine procedure, because there is controversy about its clinical advantage when compared with femoral artery cannulation (FAC). This meta-analysis assesses major short-term outcomes in @entity1 undergoing acute AAD repair with AXC or FAC using non-randomized retrospective studies dating from 1992 to 2011 comparing AXC and FAC for major outcomes. Outcomes of interest were short-term mortality, @entity51 and malperfusion. The fixed-effects model was used. Sensitivity and heterogeneity were analysed. Analysis of nine non-randomized studies comprising 715 @entity1 [AXC, 359 (50.2%) and FAC, 356 (49.8%)] showed a significantly lower incidence of short-term mortality in the AXC group [odds ratio, 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.15, 0.42),   (2) = 7.23, P < 0.01]. The pattern of incidence of @entity51 among the AXC group [odds ratio, 0.46, 95% CI (0.29, 0.72),   (2) = 9.01, P < 0.01] was similar. The incidence of malperfusion did not differ [odds ratio, 0.84, 95% CI (0.37, 1.90),   (2) = 2.25, P = 0.67]. Because no study was a randomized trial, our results are more uncertain than indicated by the 95% CI. Nevertheless, AXC seems to give better short-term mortality and @entity51 rates than FAC.

Which cannulation (axillary cannulation or femoral cannulation) is better for acute XXXX aortic dissection repair? A meta-analysis of nine clinical studies.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients'] @entity51 :: ('MESH:D009461', 'Disease') :: ['neurological dysfunction'] @entity1129 :: ('MESH:D001260', 'Disease') :: ['type A']
@entity1129 :: (MESH:D001260,Disease) :: ['type A']
