Submitted:
29 August 2026
Posted:
31 August 2026
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Aortic arch surgery remains one of the most complex procedures in cardiovascular surgery, requiring effective strategies for cerebral, visceral, and myocardial protection. Although cardioplegic arrest has long been the standard approach for myocardial preservation, prolonged ischemic times during extensive arch reconstruction may contribute to perioperative myocardial injury. Continuous myocardial perfusion (CMP) has emerged as an alternative strategy that maintains coronary blood flow during selected phases of aortic arch surgery, potentially reducing ischemic exposure and limiting ischemia-reperfusion injury. This narrative review summarizes the physiological rationale, technical considerations, and currently available clinical evidence regarding CMP in aortic arch surgery. Existing reports suggest that continuous coronary perfusion is technically feasible and may provide effective myocardial protection during complex arch procedures. Early clinical experiences have demonstrated acceptable perioperative outcomes in carefully selected patients undergoing advanced aortic reconstruction. Despite these encouraging findings, the current evidence base remains limited and consists predominantly of observational studies from specialized centers. Further prospective studies are required to evaluate long-term outcomes, define optimal patient selection, and determine the role of CMP within contemporary aortic arch surgery. Continuous myocardial perfusion represents a promising myocardial protection strategy that warrants further investigation before broader adoption can be recommended.
Keywords:
aortic arch surgery
; aortic reconstruction
; cardiac surgery
; cardioplegia
; cardiopulmonary bypass
; cerebral protection
; continuous myocardial perfusion
; frozen elephant trunk
; ischemia-reperfusion injury
; myocardial protection
Introduction and Background
Aortic arch surgery represents one of the most technically demanding procedures in cardiovascular surgery because it requires simultaneous protection of the brain, spinal cord, visceral organs, and myocardium during periods of altered circulation. Advances in cerebral perfusion strategies, hypothermic circulatory arrest, and surgical techniques have improved outcomes; however, myocardial protection remains a critical determinant of perioperative morbidity and mortality [1].
Conventional myocardial protection during aortic arch surgery relies on cardioplegic arrest, which provides a motionless operative field and reduces myocardial metabolic demand. Although this approach is well established, prolonged ischemic times during complex arch reconstruction may contribute to myocardial injury, ventricular dysfunction, and postoperative complications [2]. The risk may be particularly relevant in extensive procedures requiring prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic cross-clamp times.
Continuous myocardial perfusion (CMP) has emerged as an alternative strategy aimed at maintaining coronary blood flow throughout selected phases of aortic arch repair. By providing ongoing oxygen and substrate delivery to the myocardium, CMP may reduce ischemia-reperfusion injury and preserve ventricular function while allowing complex reconstruction to proceed [3]. Early experimental and clinical experiences have demonstrated the technical feasibility of maintaining coronary perfusion during advanced aortic procedures [4].
Interest in CMP has increased with the development of modern aortic arch techniques, including frozen elephant trunk procedures and hybrid arch reconstructions, where prolonged operative times may challenge conventional myocardial protection strategies [5]. However, despite encouraging reports, clinical experience remains limited, and the role of CMP in routine practice has not been clearly defined.
This review summarizes the physiological rationale, technical approaches, available clinical evidence, potential advantages, limitations, and future directions of continuous myocardial perfusion in aortic arch surgery.
Review
Physiological Basis of Continuous Myocardial Perfusion
Continuous myocardial perfusion is based on the principle of maintaining coronary blood flow during aortic arch reconstruction, thereby avoiding prolonged periods of global myocardial ischemia. Unlike conventional cardioplegic arrest, which intentionally interrupts coronary circulation to reduce myocardial metabolic demand, CMP provides a continuous supply of oxygen and metabolic substrates throughout selected phases of the operation [3]. This approach may reduce the accumulation of ischemic metabolites and limit the cellular injury associated with ischemia-reperfusion.
Experimental and clinical investigations have demonstrated that sustained coronary perfusion can preserve myocardial energy stores, reduce biochemical markers of myocardial injury, and maintain ventricular function during complex cardiac procedures [4]. Preservation of aerobic metabolism may be particularly advantageous during prolonged aortic arch reconstructions where cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times are extended.
In addition to reducing ischemic exposure, CMP may lessen the inflammatory and oxidative stress responses associated with myocardial reperfusion. Ischemia-reperfusion injury is characterized by calcium overload, mitochondrial dysfunction, endothelial injury, and the generation of reactive oxygen species, all of which may contribute to postoperative ventricular dysfunction [6]. By maintaining continuous coronary flow, CMP may mitigate some of these pathophysiological mechanisms.
Despite these theoretical advantages, adequate myocardial protection depends on maintaining sufficient perfusion pressure, appropriate flow distribution, and technical control throughout the procedure.
Consequently, the effectiveness of CMP remains influenced by operative complexity, patient characteristics, and institutional experience [5].
Techniques of continuous myocardial perfusion
Several technical approaches to CMP have been described in aortic arch surgery. Most strategies involve direct antegrade coronary perfusion through the aortic root or selective coronary perfusion using oxygenated blood delivered from the cardiopulmonary bypass circuit [4]. These techniques are designed to maintain coronary circulation while permitting reconstruction of the ascending aorta and arch vessels.
One of the most widely reported approaches utilizes normothermic or mildly hypothermic blood perfusion through the coronary arteries while systemic and cerebral perfusion are maintained independently. This technique allows surgeons to perform complex arch reconstruction without prolonged interruption of myocardial blood flow [7]. Alternative methods include selective coronary cannulation and customized perfusion circuits that maintain continuous myocardial oxygen delivery during periods of circulatory modification.
The feasibility of CMP has also been demonstrated during frozen elephant trunk procedures and other extensive arch reconstructions. In these settings, continuous coronary perfusion may be integrated with established cerebral protection strategies, including selective antegrade cerebral perfusion and moderate hypothermia [5]. Careful coordination of myocardial, cerebral, and systemic perfusion remains essential to ensure adequate organ protection throughout the operation.
Although technically achievable, CMP requires specialized perfusion management and surgical expertise. Potential challenges include maintaining stable coronary flow, avoiding coronary ostial injury, and ensuring adequate visualization during reconstruction [8].
Current Clinical Evidence
Current evidence regarding continuous myocardial perfusion (CMP) in aortic arch surgery remains limited but increasingly supportive of its feasibility and safety. Most published data originate from single-center observational studies and technical reports evaluating CMP during complex arch reconstruction, including frozen elephant trunk procedures and extensive thoracic aortic repairs [4]. These investigations have primarily focused on perioperative outcomes, myocardial injury markers, ventricular function, and procedural feasibility.
Early clinical experiences demonstrated that continuous coronary perfusion could be successfully maintained throughout complex aortic procedures without significant impairment of operative exposure [4].
Investigators reported satisfactory myocardial preservation, low rates of perioperative cardiac complications, and acceptable early postoperative outcomes. These findings supported the concept that myocardial ischemic time may be reduced without compromising surgical effectiveness.
Subsequent studies evaluating myocardial perfusion strategies during aortic arch reconstruction reported reductions in biochemical indicators of myocardial injury and preservation of ventricular performance following surgery [7]. Although direct comparisons with conventional cardioplegic arrest remain limited, available data suggest that maintaining coronary blood flow throughout selected operative phases may contribute to improved myocardial protection in carefully selected patients.
The application of CMP has also been described in conjunction with contemporary arch procedures such as the frozen elephant trunk technique. In these settings, investigators have demonstrated the technical feasibility of combining continuous coronary perfusion with established cerebral protection strategies, including selective antegrade cerebral perfusion and moderate hypothermia [5]. Reported outcomes have generally been favorable, although patient numbers remain relatively small.
Despite these encouraging observations, several limitations restrict definitive conclusions. Most available studies are retrospective, involve highly specialized centers, and include limited patient populations [8]. Furthermore, heterogeneity in operative techniques, perfusion protocols, and outcome reporting complicates direct comparison across studies. Consequently, larger prospective investigations are required to determine whether CMP provides measurable clinical advantages over conventional myocardial protection strategies.
Table 1.
Summary of representative studies evaluating continuous myocardial perfusion in aortic arch surgery. Representative studies describing the application of continuous myocardial perfusion during complex aortic arch surgery. CMP = continuous myocardial perfusion.
Table 1.
Summary of representative studies evaluating continuous myocardial perfusion in aortic arch surgery. Representative studies describing the application of continuous myocardial perfusion during complex aortic arch surgery. CMP = continuous myocardial perfusion.
| Study | Study Type | Procedure | Main Findings |
| Shrestha et al. | Clinical study | Complex aortic arch repair | Continuous myocardial perfusion was feasible and associated with improved cardiac outcomes |
| Misfeld et al. | Expert review | Aortic arch surgery | Discussed integration of myocardial and cerebral protection strategies |
| Urbanski et al. | Clinical experience | Thoracic aortic surgery | Reported preservation of myocardial function and acceptable postoperative outcomes |
| Preventza et al. | Contemporary experience | Complex arch repair | Demonstrated feasibility and highlighted need for further comparative studies |
Potential Advantages of Continuous Myocardial Perfusion
The principal advantage of continuous myocardial perfusion is the reduction or avoidance of prolonged global myocardial ischemia during complex aortic arch reconstruction. By maintaining coronary blood flow throughout selected phases of the operation, CMP may preserve myocardial oxygen delivery and cellular metabolism while reducing the metabolic stress associated with conventional cardioplegic arrest [3]. This physiological benefit forms the primary rationale for its use in extensive procedures requiring prolonged operative times.
Maintenance of continuous coronary circulation may also reduce ischemia-reperfusion injury, a major contributor to postoperative myocardial dysfunction. Reperfusion following prolonged ischemia can trigger oxidative stress, calcium dysregulation, endothelial injury, and inflammatory activation, potentially leading to ventricular impairment and adverse clinical outcomes [6]. Continuous perfusion may attenuate these processes by limiting the duration and severity of ischemic exposure.
Several investigators have reported preservation of ventricular function and lower postoperative myocardial injury markers following the use of continuous coronary perfusion strategies [4]. Although evidence remains limited, these observations suggest that CMP may provide improved myocardial protection in selected patients undergoing extensive arch reconstruction. Such benefits may be particularly relevant in individuals with pre-existing ventricular dysfunction or those anticipated to require prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass times.
An additional potential advantage is the integration of myocardial protection with modern cerebral perfusion strategies. Contemporary aortic arch surgery increasingly utilizes selective antegrade cerebral perfusion and moderate hypothermia to minimize neurological complications [5]. Continuous myocardial perfusion may complement these approaches by providing simultaneous protection of the heart and brain during complex reconstructive procedures.
Despite these potential benefits, current evidence remains insufficient to establish superiority over conventional cardioplegic arrest. Existing studies primarily demonstrate feasibility and favorable early outcomes rather than definitive comparative advantages [8]. Therefore, the proposed benefits of CMP should be interpreted cautiously until validated by larger prospective investigations.
Limitations and Challenges
Continuous myocardial perfusion (CMP) presents several technical and clinical challenges that may limit its widespread adoption. Unlike conventional cardioplegic arrest, which provides a motionless and bloodless operative field, continuous coronary perfusion may complicate surgical exposure during complex aortic arch reconstruction. Maintaining adequate visualization while preserving uninterrupted myocardial blood flow requires considerable surgical expertise and careful intraoperative coordination.
Successful implementation of CMP also depends on precise perfusion management. Adequate coronary perfusion pressure and flow must be maintained throughout the procedure to ensure effective myocardial protection. Inadequate flow distribution or technical problems related to cannulation may compromise myocardial oxygen delivery and potentially negate the intended protective benefits. Furthermore, selective coronary perfusion techniques may carry risks of coronary ostial injury, malperfusion, or perfusion-related complications.
Another important limitation is the current lack of high-quality comparative evidence. Most published reports consist of observational studies, technical descriptions, and single-center experiences involving relatively small patient populations. The absence of large randomized or multicenter studies limits the ability to determine whether CMP offers superior clinical outcomes compared with established myocardial protection strategies.
In addition, significant heterogeneity exists among reported perfusion protocols, temperature management strategies, operative techniques, and outcome measures. This variability complicates comparison between studies and hinders the development of standardized recommendations for clinical practice. Consequently, the role of CMP in routine aortic arch surgery remains incompletely defined despite encouraging early results.
Table 2.
Potential advantages and limitations of continuous myocardial perfusion.
| Advantages | Limitations |
| Continuous myocardial oxygen delivery | Technically demanding procedure |
| Reduced global myocardial ischemia | Requires specialized perfusion management |
| Potential reduction in ischemia-reperfusion injury | Limited high-quality comparative evidence |
| Preservation of ventricular function | Potential coronary cannulation complications |
| Integration with cerebral protection strategies | Variable techniques across centers |
| Potential reduction in myocardial injury markers | Uncertain long-term clinical superiority |
Future Directions
The growing interest in continuous myocardial perfusion (CMP) reflects a broader effort to optimize organ protection during increasingly complex aortic arch procedures. Although current experiences suggest that CMP is technically feasible and may provide effective myocardial preservation, further investigation is required to establish its role within contemporary aortic surgery. Existing evidence remains largely observational, highlighting the need for more rigorous clinical evaluation.
Future research should focus on prospective multicenter studies comparing CMP with conventional cardioplegic arrest. Such investigations should evaluate clinically meaningful outcomes, including perioperative mortality, myocardial injury, ventricular function, neurological complications, duration of
intensive care stay, and long-term survival. Standardized reporting of perfusion protocols and outcome measures would facilitate comparison across institutions and improve the quality of available evidence.
Additional studies are also needed to determine the optimal perfusion parameters for CMP, including temperature management, coronary flow rates, perfusion pressures, and methods of coronary cannulation. Refinement of these technical aspects may improve procedural reproducibility and enhance myocardial protection during prolonged aortic reconstruction.
Advances in perfusion technology and surgical techniques may further expand the applicability of CMP. Integration with contemporary cerebral protection strategies, hybrid arch procedures, and frozen elephant trunk techniques could potentially improve overall organ preservation during complex operations. As experience accumulates, standardized protocols may emerge that facilitate broader adoption in appropriately selected patients.
Ultimately, the future role of CMP will depend on whether larger clinical studies demonstrate meaningful advantages over established myocardial protection methods. Until such evidence becomes available, continuous myocardial perfusion should be regarded as a promising but evolving strategy in aortic arch surgery.
Conclusions
Continuous myocardial perfusion represents an innovative myocardial protection strategy that aims to maintain coronary blood flow during aortic arch reconstruction and thereby reduce the adverse effects of prolonged global myocardial ischemia. Current evidence suggests that the technique is feasible and can be successfully integrated with modern cerebral protection approaches during complex aortic procedures.
Potential advantages include preservation of myocardial function, reduction of ischemia-reperfusion injury, maintenance of aerobic metabolism, and simultaneous protection of both the heart and brain during extensive reconstruction. However, the available literature remains limited, consisting predominantly of observational studies and technical reports from specialized centers.
Despite encouraging early results, important challenges remain, including technical complexity, lack of standardized protocols, and insufficient high-quality comparative evidence. Consequently, the superiority of continuous myocardial perfusion over conventional cardioplegic arrest has not yet been established.
Further prospective multicenter investigations are required to define the optimal application of CMP and to determine its impact on clinical outcomes. As surgical and perfusion technologies continue to evolve, continuous myocardial perfusion may become an increasingly important component of myocardial protection during complex aortic arch surgery.
Author Contributions: All authors have reviewed the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Concept and design: Asad Ullah; Drafting of the manuscript: Asad Ullah; Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Asad Ullah; Supervision: Asad Ullah
Conflicts of interest
In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
References
- Preventza O, Coselli JS: Current strategies for cerebral and myocardial protection during aortic arch surgery. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013, 2:286-296. [CrossRef]
- Buckberg GD: Update on current techniques of myocardial protection . Ann Thorac Surg. 1995, 60:805-814. [CrossRef]
- Buckberg GD, Beyersdorf F, Allen BS, Robertson JM: Integrated myocardial management: background and initial application. J Card Surg. 1995, 10:68-89. [CrossRef]
- Shrestha M, Martens A, Krüger H, et al.: Do not leave the heart arrested: non-cardioplegic continuous myocardial perfusion during complex aortic arch repair improves cardiac outcome. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016, 49:141-148. [CrossRef]
- Misfeld M, Mohr FW, Etz CD: Best strategy for cerebral protection in arch surgery: antegrade selective cerebral perfusion and adequate hypothermia. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013, 2:331-338. [CrossRef]
- Hausenloy DJ, Yellon DM: Myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury: a neglected therapeutic target . J Clin Invest. 2013, 123:92-100. [CrossRef]
- Urbanski PP, Lenos A, Bougioukakis P, et al.: Mild-to-moderate hypothermia in aortic arch surgery using selective cerebral perfusion. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012, 41:185-189. [CrossRef]
- Preventza O, Garcia A, Cooley DA, et al.: Contemporary outcomes of complex aortic arch repair and organ protection strategies. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015, 149:95-102. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.