Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage for everyone.

Contemporary Single-Center Experience With Prophylactic Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage for Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients at High Risk for Ischemic Spinal Cord Injury

Prospective randomized pilot trial comparing prophylactic and therapeutic cerebrospinal fluid drainage during complex endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Elective Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Thoraco-abdominal Aortic Repair with Supracoeliac Sealing Zones and without Prophylactic Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage: Early and Medium-term Outcomes

Safety of cerebrospinal fluid drainage for spinal cord ischemia prevention in thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Outcomes of a Spinal Drain and Intraoperative Neurophysiologic Monitoring Protocol in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Spinal Cord Protection with a Cerebrospinal Fluid Drain in a Patient Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

Stent Graft-Induced Aortic Wall Injury—Anesthesia Pitfalls and Pearls for the Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair Procedure

Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage During Thoracic Aortic Repair: Safety and Current Management

Traumatic spinal cord injury occurs in two phases: biomechanical injury, followed by ischemia and reperfusion injury. Biomechanical injury to the spinal cord, preceded or followed by various pharmaceutical manipulations or interventions, has been studied, but the ischemia/reperfusion aspect of spinal cord injury isolated from the biomechanical injury has not been previously evaluated. In the current study, ischemia to the lumbar spinal cord was induced in albino rabbits via infrarenal aortic occlusion, and two interventions were analyzed: the use of U74006F (Tirilazad mesylate), a 21-aminosteroid, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage. These treatment modalities were tested alone or in combination. In Phase 1 of this study, the rabbits received 1.0 mg/kg of Tirilazad or an equal volume of vehicle (controls) prior to the actual occlusion, three doses of Tirilazad (1 mg/kg each) during the occlusion, then several doses after the occlusion. Of the Tirilazad-treated animals, 30% became paraplegic while 70% of the control animals became paraplegic. Phase 2 involved the same doses of Tirilazad as in Phase 1 and, in addition, CSF pressure monitoring and drainage were performed. The paraplegia rate was 79% in the control animals, 36% in the group receiving Tirilazad alone, 25% in the group with CSF drainage alone, and 20% in the Tirilazad plus CSF drainage group. This rate also correlated with changes noted in CSF pressure; both Tirilazad administration alone and CSF drainage alone induced a decrease in CSF pressure and the two combined produced a further decrease. There was marked improvement in the perfusion pressure when using Tirilazad alone, CSF drainage alone, and Tirilazad therapy in combination with CSF drainage, with the last group producing the largest increase. This change in CSF pressure and perfusion pressure correlated with improved functional neurological outcome. Pathological examination revealed that Tirilazad therapy reduced the extensive and diffuse neuronal, glial, and endothelial damage to (in its most severe form) a more patchy focal region of damage in the gray matter. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage resulted in pyknosis of some motor neurons, and some eosinophilia. The combination of CSF drainage and Tirilazad administration resulted in the least abnormality, with either normal or near-normal spinal cords. It is concluded that Tirilazad administration decreased CSF pressure during spinal cord ischemia and reperfusion and, like CSF drainage, increased and improved the perfusion pressure to the spinal cord, decreased spinal cord damage, and improved functional outcome.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Pro: Fluoroscopic Guidance Should Be Routinely Used to Place Cerebrospinal Fluid Drains for Patients Undergoing Aortic Surgery

Systematic review and meta-analysis of association of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage in preventing spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair

To assess outcomes of fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of Extent I-III thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) without prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD). Prophylactic CSFD has been routinely used during endovascular TAAA repair, but concerns about major drain-related complications have led to revising this paradigm. We reviewed a multicenter cohort of 541 patients treated for Extent I-III TAAAs by FB-EVAR without prophylactic CSFD. Spinal cord injury (SCI) was graded as ambulatory (paraparesis) or nonambulatory (paraplegia). Endpoints were any SCI, permanent paraplegia, response to rescue treatment, major drain-related complications, mortality, and patient survival. There were 22 Extent I, 240 Extent II and 279 Extent III TAAAs. Thirty-day mortality was 3%. SCI occurred in 45 patients (8%), paraparesis occurring in 23 (4%) and paraplegia in 22 patients (4%). SCI was more common in patients with Extent I-II compared with Extent III TAAAs (12% vs. 5%, P =0.01). Rescue treatment included permissive hypertension in all patients, with CSFD in 22 (4%). Symptom improvement was noted in 73%. Twelve patients (2%) had permanent paraplegia. Two patients (0.4%) had major drain-related complications. Independent predictors for SCI by multivariate logistic regression were sustained perioperative hypotension [odds ratio (OR): 4.4, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.7-11.1], patent collateral network (OR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.1-0.6), and total length of aortic coverage (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.10). Patient survival at 3 years was 72%±3%. FB-EVAR of Extent I-III TAAAs without CSFD has low mortality and low rates of permanent paraplegia (2%). SCI occurred in 8% of patients, and rescue treatment improved symptoms in 73% of them.

Lumbar Drains After Cardiac Surgery: Evidence-Based Solutions for Safe Management.

Case 3—2005 Risk and Benefits of Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage During Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm Surgery

ObjectiveThe aim of the present systematic review was to determine whether prophylactic use of cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) contributes to a lower rate of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (TBAD).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify all relevant studies reported before May 7, 2023. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023441392). The primary outcome was permanent SCI. Secondary outcomes were temporary SCI and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. The data were presented as the pooled event rates (ERs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 1008 studies were screened, of which 34 studies with 2749 patients were included in the present analysis. The mean Downs and Black quality assessment score was 8.71 (range, 5–12). The pooled rate of permanent SCI with prophylactic CSFD was identical to that without prophylactic CSFD (2.0%; 95% CI, 1.0–3.0; P = 0.445). No statistically significant difference was found between the rates of permanent SCI with routine vs. selective prophylactic CSFD (P = 0.596). The pooled rate of temporary SCI was 1.0% (95% CI, 0.00–1.0%). The pooled rate for 30-day or in-hospital mortality was not significantly different (P = 0.525) in patients with prophylactic CSFD (4.0, 95% CI 2.0–6.0) or without prophylactic CSFD (5.0, 95% CI 2.0–7.0).ConclusionsThe systematic review has shown that prophylactic CSFD was not associated with a lower rate of permanent SCI and 30-day or in-hospital mortality after TEVAR for TBAD.