ABSTRACT
Abstract Objective: To investigate whether axillary artery cannulation has supremacy over innominate artery cannulation in thoracic aortic surgery. Methods: A comprehensive search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE [EMBASE], Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing axillary to innominate artery cannulation in thoracic aortic surgery. Databases were evaluated and assessed up to March 2017. Results: Only three studies fulfilled the criteria for this meta-analysis, including 534 patients. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter in the innominate group (P=0.004). However, the innominate group had significantly higher risk of prolonged intubation > 48 hours (P=0.04) than the axillary group. Further analysis revealed no significant difference between the innominate and axillary groups for deep hypothermic circulatory arrest time (P=0.06). The relative risks for temporary and permanent neurological deficits as well as in-hospital mortality were not significantly different for both groups (P=0.90, P=0.49, and P=0.55, respectively). Length of hospital stay was similar for both groups. Conclusion: There is no superiority of axillary over innominate artery cannulation in thoracic aortic surgery in terms of perioperative outcomes; however, as the studies were limited, larger scale comparative studies are required to provide a solid evidence base for choosing optimal arterial cannulation site.