The safety and usefulness of cool head-warm body perfusion in aortic surgery

Objective: To determine the safety and usefulness of antegrade hypothermic cerebral perfusion in conjunction with mild hypothermic (tepid) visceral perfusion (so-called cool head–warm body perfusion; CHWB) in aortic surgery; the clinical outcomes and perioperative data on this new technique were retrospectively analyzed. Methods: From January 1990 to March 1999, 59 patients underwent ascending aorta or aortic arch surgery using antegrade selective cerebral perfusion (SCP). Three perfusion techniques, differentiated by perfusion temperature, were used, those being deep hypothermia (DH; nasopharyngeal temperature of 20°C, n=14), moderate hypothermia (MH; nasopharyngeal temperature of 28°C, n=17) and CHWB (nasopharyngeal temperature of 25°C and bladder temperature of 32°C, n=28). Selection of the technique largely followed a chronological pattern, in this order: DH, MH and, more recently, CHWB. The three groups were retrospectively compared in terms of operative outcome, duration of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and operation, and intraoperative blood loss. Results: The early (within 30 days after surgery) mortality/hospital mortality (including operative mortality) was 7.1/21.4, 5.9/11.8 and 3.6/7.1% in the DH, MH and CHWB groups, respectively. The rate of stroke was 7.1, 6.3 and 3.6% in the DH, MH and CHWB groups, respectively. No statistical difference was found in early or hospital mortality, or in the rate of stroke among the three groups. The CPB time, especially the time for rewarming, was significantly shorter in the CHWB than in the DH group. Likewise, the operation time, especially the time after CPB, was significantly shorter in the CHWB than in the DH and MH groups. Blood loss was significantly less in the CHWB than in the DH group. Conclusion: Our data suggest that CHWB perfusion in aortic surgery is a safe and useful technique in shortening the operation time and reducing blood loss, but further prospective study is necessary.