Single Arterial Cannulation vs. Dual Arterial Cannulation during Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Pooled result · ICU LOSResult — go to the resultMD 0.45 days 95% CI 0.10–0.79Authors' conclusion
Our meta-analysis shows that during ATAAD repair, DAC was associated with slightly longer intensive care stay, which was of doubtful clinical significance. However, both approaches were comparable for hospital stay, the incidence of stroke, paraplegia, or acute kidney injury.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) repair
- Participants
- 3,534 patients · 7 studies
- Comparison
- Double arterial cannulation (DAC) vs single arterial cannulation (SAC) during acute type A aortic dissection repair
- Outcome
- ICU LOS
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
MD
0.45 days
95% CI 0.10–0.79
P = 0.01
DAC vs SAC
MD 0.45 days (95% CI 0.10–0.79); P = 0.01
Further pooled results
| Outcome | MD (days) (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hospital LOS | 1.39 (−2.70 to 5.47) | P = 0.51 | |
| −50510Difference, days (linear scale) |
Safety
Stroke
- No significant difference between the two approaches (DAC vs SAC): RR (95% CI), p
- 1.12 (0.77, 1.64), p = 0.55
Paraplegia
- No significant difference between the two approaches (DAC vs SAC): RR (95% CI), p
- 0.59 (0.32, 1.07), p = 0.08
AKI
- No significant difference between the two approaches (DAC vs SAC): RR (95% CI), p
- 0.83 (0.55, 1.24), p = 1.24
- p printed as 1.24
Original publication
Single Arterial Cannulation vs. Dual Arterial Cannulation during Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. Published 24 October 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →