Comparison of ascending aorta versus femoral artery cannulation for XXXX .

@entity1 @entity64 @entity697 @entity1580
BACKGROUND: The site of cannulation for repair of ascending @entity1580 remains controversial. We present our experience with ascending aortic cannulation for @entity697 . METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 1988 to September 2007, we operated on 242 @entity1 for @entity697 . Medical records of 235 @entity1 who received ascending aortic cannulation or femoral cannulation were retrospectively reviewed. Long-term follow-up was complete in 97% of @entity1 . Cannulation was accomplished in 82 @entity1 through the ascending aorta and in 153 @entity1 through the femoral artery. Preoperative @entity1 characteristics were almost comparable between groups. Similarly, there were no differences in preoperative @entity1 characteristics and intraoperative parameters including operation time, bypass time, cross-clamp time, hypothermic circulatory arrest time, and percentage of total arch replacement. The 30-day mortality rate was 14% in the aortic group and 23% in the femoral group (P=0.07), and incidence of @entity64 was 4.9% in the aortic group and 4.5% in the femoral group (P=0.86). During follow-up (mean, 5.5 years), survival at 5 years and 10 years was 65% and 41% in the aortic group and 64% and 46% in the femoral group, respectively (P=0.97). CONCLUSIONS: The cannulation site should be chosen according to the @entity1 's pathology and status, and the present study suggests that ascending cannulation in @entity1 with @entity697 can be a safe alternative, offering acceptable early and long-term outcomes.
