Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Nov;44(5):898-904.
doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezt070. Epub 2013 Feb 22.

Remote access perfusion for minimally invasive cardiac surgery: to clamp or to inflate?

Christoph Krapf  1 , Peter Wohlrab, Sarah Häußinger, Thomas Schachner, Herbert Hangler, Michael Grimm, Ludwig Müller, Johannes Bonatti, Nikolaos Bonaros
Affiliations

Remote access perfusion for minimally invasive cardiac surgery: to clamp or to inflate?

Christoph Krapf et al. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013 Nov.

Abstract

Objectives: Endoaortic balloon occlusion (EBO) and aortic transthoracic clamping (TTC) are the dominant methods of remote access perfusion (RAP) in minimally invasive cardiac surgery. The aim of the study was to compare the two methods in terms of feasibility, success and complications.

Methods: From June 2001 to November 2011, 307 (median age; range) (57; 16-77 years) and 460 (62; 11-88 years) patients underwent minimally invasive CABG, ASD and mitral valve surgery using EBO and TTC, respectively. Perioperative procedure feasibility, success and postoperative complications were recorded.

Results: Overall 30-day mortality was 0 and 2 (0.43%) for the EBO and TTC groups, respectively (P = 0.52). Overall and RAP-associated conversions were noted in 21 (6.8%) and 4 (1.3%) patients in the EBO and in 9 (2%) and 6 (1.3%) patients in the TTC groups (P < 0.001, P = 1.00, respectively). Incidence of major complications, including aortic dissection, major vessel perforation, injury of intrapericardial structures, limb ischaemia, myocardial infarction and neurologic events, was similar [EBO: 12 (4%); TTC: 11 (2.4%); P = 0.23]. Minor complications such as minor vessel injury, groin bleeding or lymphatic fistula were noted in 31 (10.1%) and 35 (7.6%), respectively (P = 0.23). Successful RAP procedures defined as absence of RAP-associated conversions and major complications were equal [EBO: 295 (96%); TTC: 449 (97.6%); P = 0.23]. Complications detected during follow-up included pain: 30 of 249 (12%) and 13 of 279 (4.7%) (P = 0.002); sensational disturbances: 60 of 249 (24.1%) and 40 of 278 (14.4%) (P = 0.005) and wound-healing complications: 49 of 249 (19.7%) and 42 of 277 (15.2%) (P = 0.172) for EBO and TTC, respectively.

Conclusions: RAP can be successfully and safely implemented in minimally invasive cardiac surgery. EBO and transthoracic clamping of the ascending aorta are performing equally in terms of feasibility and procedural success.

Keywords: Minimally invasive cardiac surgery; Procedural outcomes; Remote access perfusion.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms