A comprehensive total body perfusion strategy versus conventional techniques in elective aortic arch surgery: a comparative analysis
Clicks: 3
ID: 315120
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
0.6
/100
3 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #74 of 87 articles by views in Interdisciplinary CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Aortic arch surgery traditionally relies on hypothermic circulatory and cardioplegic arrest, exposing myocardium and visceral organs to ischemia-reperfusion injury. We developed a total body perfusion (TBP) strategy providing continuous cerebral, myocardial, and visceral perfusion during arch reconstruction. This study compares outcomes between conventionally and TBP-treated patients. METHODS: Analysis included 121 consecutive elective aortic arch replacements (2014-2025). From June 2022, patients (n = 38) were intended for TBP; earlier cases (n = 83) underwent conventional techniques. TBP comprised continuous warm myocardial, selective cerebral, and retrograde visceral perfusion. Outcomes included intraoperative characteristics, biochemical markers, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Baseline demographics were similar (male 65.8% vs 53.0%, p=.188; median age 63.9 [IQR 60.5-72.4] vs 66.1 [IQR 58.7-70.6] years, p=.915). TBP-patients presented with greater surgical complexity (more concomitant procedures: 65.8% vs 45.8%, p=.041; chronic dissection: 18.4% vs 0.0%, p<.001; active infection at time of surgery: 15.8% vs 3.6%, p=.027). TBP reduced myocardial ischemia time (median 65.0 [IQR 39.0-98.5] vs 122.0 [IQR 93.0-170.0] minutes, p<.001) and circulatory arrest use (18.4% vs 86.7%, p<.001), and demonstrated lower peak lactate levels (median 2.2 [IQR 1.5-4.6] vs 3.9 [IQR 2.9-5.2] mmol/L, p<.001), shorter ICU stay (median 2.0 [IQR 1.0-7.0] vs 4.0 [IQR 3.0-8.0] days, p=.006), and improved one-year survival (92.1% vs 72.3%, p=.025). Multivariable analysis confirmed TBP's independent survival benefit (HR = 0.187, 95% CI 0.044-0.807, p=.025). Sensitivity analyses were directionally consistent. CONCLUSIONS: TBP appeared as a feasible and safe approach in elective aortic arch surgery, associated with improved clinical outcomes and offering comprehensive organ protection. TBP may expand surgical candidacy in high-risk patients.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7162565734
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Annesimone Lotfalla, Samuel Heuts, Rick Scheurs, Jos G Maessen, Leon Schurgers, Erik Körver, Sander Verheule, Roberto Lorusso, M JACOBS, Elham Bidar |
| Journal | Interdisciplinary CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/icvts/ivag145
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.