Prophylactic Cerebrospinal Fluid Research Articles

Complications of cerebrospinal fluid drainage in thoracoabdominal aortic procedures.

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage is used to reduce spinal cord ischemia (SCI) in patients undergoing thoracoabdominal aortic procedures. Recent literature has found high rates of complication associated with CSF drainage, which has led to changes in practice. The aim of this study was to investigate rates of CSF drain-related complications in patients undergoing a thoracoabdominal aortic procedure with perioperative placement of a CSF drain. We conducted a single-centre retrospective cohort study. We defined major complications as intracranial hemorrhage, epidural hematoma or abscess, meningitis, and catheter retention requiring a reoperation. Minor complications assessed included drain-induced neurologic deficits, CSF leak, postdural puncture headache, asymptomatic blood in the CSF, drain failure, and catheter retention not requiring a reoperation. We recorded postoperative neurologic deficits as secondary outcomes. There were 129 patients who met the inclusion criteria. We found 5 cases of permanent paraplegia in the overall cohort (3.9%), with only 2 occurring in the patients with prophylactic CSF drains (1.6%). There were no major CSF drain-related complications. The rate of minor complications was 17.8%. We found no association between complication rates and indication for procedure or type of operation. The lack of major complications in this series adds to existing variability in recent literature and provides support for continued use of this adjunct for SCI prevention. Further research is required to identify the etiology of significant differences in CSF drain complication rates seen at other centres.

A dedicated preventive protocol sustainably avoids spinal cord ischemia after endovascular aortic repair.

To analyze the incidence of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after complex endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) after the introduction of a dedicated SCI preventive protocol. Retrospective review of all consecutive patients undergoing complex EVAR with branched (BEVAR) and/or fenestrated grafts (FEVAR) during a 6-year period starting January 1st, 2015. The preventive protocol consisted of staging extensive aortic repairs, maintaining a mean arterial pressure (MAP) >80 mm Hg, Hb level >110 g/L, early lower limb reperfusion and neurological control per hour during the post-operative stay in the intensive care unit (36-72 h). Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) was used selectively. Pre- intra-, and 30-day postoperative clinical data and imaging were collected. Primary end point was the development of perioperative SCI. Secondary outcome included technical and clinical success. Complex EVAR was performed in 205 patients (167 males, 72 (67-75) years, 182 (88.8%) elective) with juxtarenal aneurysms (JRA, 155 patients) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA). SCI occurred after JRA repair in two patients (1.3%, both ruptures) and after TAAA repair in three (6.0%, one rupture) (p = 0.06), all within 9 h postoperatively. There was symptom regression in three cases (one partial, two complete), resulting in a persistent SCI level of 0.6% and 4.0% for JRA and TAAA, respectively. Only one patient with persistent SCI could be discharged from the hospital alive. Patients developing SCI were more commonly female (n = 3, p = .016), presented with rupture (n = 3, p < .001), had preoperative renal insufficiency (n = 5, p < .001) and had lower minimal MAP (p = .015). No regression analysis was done due to the limited number of SCI events in relation to the study population size. Primary technical success was achieved in 162 patients (83.5%) and clinical success in 153 patients (75.4%), without any differences between the groups. The incidence of persistent SCI after complex EVAR is low with the use of a dedicated SCI preventive protocol allowing the early diagnosis. Females, patients with ruptured aneurysms and preoperative renal insufficiency are at higher risk. Further studies are needed to customize the protocols particularly in those high-risk patients.

Post-dissection Thoraco-abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Managed by Fenestrated or Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair

Fenestrated or branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR) is a valuable treatment in patients with chronic post-dissection thoraco-abdominal aneurysm (PD-TAAA). This study aimed to analyse early and follow up outcomes of F/B-EVAR in these patients. Thirty day and follow up outcomes of consecutive patients with PD-TAAA treated with F/B-EVAR in a tertiary centre over eight years were analysed retrospectively. All patients presenting with PD-TAAA and managed with F/B-EVAR were eligible. A modified Crawford's classification system was used. Thirty day mortality and major adverse event (MAE) rates were analysed. Time to event data were estimated with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Fifty five patients (80% men, mean age 63.7 ± 7.7 years) were included: 12 (22%) were managed urgently; 25 (46%) for chronic type B aortic dissection; and the remainder for residual type A aortic dissection. Of these patients, 88% had undergone previous thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) was used in 91%. Fifteen (27%) patients were treated with F-EVAR, nine (16%) with fenestrations and branches, and 31 (56%) with B-EVAR. False lumen adjunctive procedures were used in 56%. Technical success was achieved in 96% of patients. The thirty day mortality rate was 7% and MAE rate was 20%. Spinal cord injury (SCI) grades 1 - 3 and grade 3 rates were 13% and 2%, respectively. Mean follow up was 33.0 ± 18.4 months. Survival and freedom from unscheduled re-intervention were 86% (standard error [SE] 5%) and 55% (SE 8%) at 24 months, respectively. Freedom from target vessel stenosis and occlusion was higher in F-EVAR at the 12 month follow up (p= .006) compared with B-EVAR. Fenestrated or branched endovascular repairs in patients with PD-TAAA showed high technical success, with acceptable early mortality and MAE rates. The SCI rate was > 10%, despite CSFD use and staged procedures. Almost a half of patients needed an unscheduled re-intervention within 24 months after F/B-EVAR.

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

BackgroundEndovascular techniques have transformed the management of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). However, spinal cord ischemia (SCI) remains a prevalent and devastating complication. Prophylactic drainage of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is among the proposed strategies for prevention of SCI. Although prophylactic CSF drainage is widely used and conceptually attractive, prophylactic CSF drains have not been demonstrated to definitively prevent the occurrence nor mitigate the severity of SCI in endovascular TAAA repair. Whether or not outcomes of prophylactic drains are superior to therapeutic drains remains unknown. This pilot study was performed to determine the feasibility of a randomized clinical trial designed to investigate the role of prophylactic vs therapeutic CSF drains in the prevention of SCI in patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair using branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FBEVAR). MethodsThis was a prospective multicenter randomized pilot clinical trial conducted at The University of Alabama at Birmingham and The University of Massachusetts. Twenty patients were enrolled and randomized to either the prophylactic drainage or therapeutic drainage groups, prior to undergoing FBEVAR for extensive TAAAs and arch aortic aneurysms. This was a pilot feasibility study that was not powered to detect statistical differences in clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was feasibility of randomization and compliance with a shared lumbar drain protocol. Secondary outcomes included rate of drain complications and SCI. ResultsTwenty patients were enrolled and successfully randomized, without any crossovers, to either the control cohort (n = 10), without prophylactic drains, or the experimental cohort (n = 10), with prophylactic drains. There were no differences in age, comorbidities, or history of prior aortic surgery across the cohorts. All patients were treated with FBEVAR. Aneurysm classifications were as follows: Extent I (10%), Extent II (50%), Extent III (35%), and Extent IV (5%). The average length of aortic coverage was 207 ± 21.6 mm. The length of aortic coverage did not vary across cohorts, nor did procedural times or blood loss volume. Compliance with the SCI prevention protocol was 100% across both groups. Within the prophylactic drain cohort, one patient experienced an adverse event related to lumbar drain placement, manifested as an epidural hematoma requiring laminectomy, without neurologic deficit (n = 1/10; 10%). There was one SCI event (n = 1/20; 5%), which occurred in the prophylactic drain cohort on postoperative day 9 following an episode of hypotension related to a gastrointestinal bleed. ConclusionsThe role of prophylactic CSF drains for the prevention of SCI following endovascular TAAA repair is a topic of ongoing research, with many current practices based on expert opinion and experience, rather than rigorous scientific data. This study demonstrates the feasibility of a multicenter randomized clinical trial to evaluate the role of prophylactic vs therapeutic CSF drains in the prevention of SCI in patients undergoing endovascular TAAA repair.

Spinal Cord Protection During Thoracic and Thoracoabdominal Endovascular Aortic Repair: 5-Year Results of a Preventive Protocol Including Prophylactic Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage in High-Risk Patients

Purpose: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating complication of thoracoabdominal aortic (TAA) repair. The use of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) as part of a protective protocol during endovascular repair is controversial. This article reports the results of the prophylactic use of CSFD as part of the of a prevention protocol implemented in 2016. Methods: Retrospective review of spinal cord outcomes (SCI rate and CSFD-related complications) in patients treated endovascularly for TAA disease at a single institution from 2016 (implementation of an institutional SCI risk reduction protocol) to 2021. Patients were classified as high risk (≥2 factors), intermediate risk (1 factor), or low risk (0 factor). Only high-risk patients without contraindications underwent a prophylactic CSFD placement. Results: One hundred eighty-one patients were analyzed (124 males; 69.6 years): 130 (69%) aneurysms (n=24 thoracic, n=28 Crawford 1–2–3, and n=78 Crawford 4/pararenal), 35 (19.9%) chronic aneurysmal dissections, and 16 (8.8%) acute complicated type B dissections. Interventions were staged in 31 (17.2%) cases, and consisted of 74 (41%) Thoracic EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (TEVAR) and 107 (59%) Fenestrated Branched EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (F-BEVAR). Sixty-nine (38.1%) patients were identified as being at high risk of SCI and CSFD was used prophylactically in 64 of them (4 failures and 1 contraindication). Spinal cord injury occurred in 8 cases (4 paraparesis, 4 paraplegias including 2 permanent), of which 3 had a prophylactic CSFD and 5 underwent rescue drainage. In addition, 4 patients developed SCI related to prophylactic CSFD (intradural hematoma), resulting in 1 paraparesis and 3 paraplegias. Other CSFD-related complications were mild (6) or moderate (2), for a total of 12 complications (17%). Factors associated with major drain complications were: curative anticoagulation 36 hours after drain removal (n=1), multiple punctures (n=1), platelet count &lt;100 000 at drain removal (n=1), and bipolar disorder (n=2). Overall, 4 patients had permanent paraplegia and 1 had sphincter dysfunction at the last follow-up. Mean follow-up was 17 months. Mortality was 4.4% at 30 days and 13.3% at 18 months, including 3 (1.6%) aortic-related deaths. Conclusions: With the protocol we used to protect the spinal cord, we report results comparable with the SCI literature and highlight the risks associated with prophylactic CSFD use, which requires a better understanding of contraindications.

Abstract 18173: Spinal Cord Protective Strategy Before Extensive Surgical Procedure for Patients With Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

Introduction: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating complication following total arch replacement (TAR) with frozen elephant trunk (FET) procedure in acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of spinal cord protective strategy (SCPS) implemented before this extensive procedure. Methods: Between January 2013 and December 2021, a total of 1105 ATAAD patients underwent TAR with FET procedure. SCPS included preoperative assessment of segment number of the false lumen closest to the spinal cord between T9-L3 level. If segment number exceeded 5, indicating high risk of postoperative SCI, prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage would be conducted. SCPS was performed since June 2017 at our institution (703 patients). The remaining 402 patients were served as the control group. The two groups were compared to assess the efficacy of SCPS in preventing SCI. Results: The average age was significantly higher in the SCPS group (48.9±11.1 vs 46.6±10.0, P&lt;0.001). The patients in SCPS group presented with higher percentage of coma (P&lt;0.001). The mean duration of cardiopulmonary bypass was significantly longer in SCPS group (P&lt;0.001), while the mean duration of hypothetical cardiac arrest was significantly lower (P&lt;0.001). Propensity score matching was conducted, resulting in a matched sample of 186 patients from each group to adjust for differences in patient characteristics. The incidence of postoperative SCI was significantly lower in SCPS group (1.7% vs 7.2%, P&lt;0.001). Propensity score matching demonstrated higher estimated incremental protective efficacy of SCPS (1.1% vs 9.7%, P&lt;0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that preoperative SCPS was an independent protective factor for postoperative SCI (OR=0.226, 95% CI: 0.114-0.448, P&lt;0.001). Conclusions: The implementation of preoperative SCPS is an effective strategy for reducing the incidence of SCI follow extensive surgical procedure in ATAAD.

Early and midterm outcomes of fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair in thoracoabdominal aneurysms types I through III

BackgroundFenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/BEVAR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) has shown high technical success and low early mortality rates. Aneurysm extent has been reported as a factor affecting outcomes. This study aimed to assess the early and midterm follow-up outcomes of patients managed by F/BEVAR for types I through III TAAAs. MethodsA single-center retrospective analysis was conducted, including data from consecutive, elective and urgent (symptomatic and ruptured cases), patients treated for types I through III TAAAs, between October 1, 2011, and October 1, 2022, using F/BEVAR. Degenerative and postdissection TAAAs were included. Patients received prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD), except those under therapeutic anticoagulation, those who were hemodynamically unstable, or those with failed CSFD application. When an initial thoracic endovascular aortic repair was performed, as part of a staged procedure, no CSFD was used. Later stages and nonstaged procedures were performed under CSFD. Thirty-day mortality and major adverse events (MAEs) were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for follow-up outcomes. ResultsF/BEVAR for types I through III TAAAs was performed in 209 patients (56.9% males; mean age, 69.6 ± 3.2 years; mean aneurysm diameter, 65.2 ± 6.2 mm); 29.2% type I, 57.9% type II, and 12.9% type III. Urgent repair was performed in 26.7% of patients (56 cases; 23 ruptured and 33 symptomatic cases) and 153 were treated electively. Thirty-two patients (15.3%) were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class IV. CSFD was used in 91% and staged thoracic endovascular aortic repair was performed in 51.2% of patients. Technical success was 93.8% (96.7% in elective vs 94.6% in urgent cases; P = .92). Thirty-day mortality was 11.0% (4.6% in elective vs 28.5% in urgent cases; P < .001) and MAEs were recorded in 17.2% of cases (7.8% in elective vs 42.8% in urgent cases; P < .001). Spinal cord ischemia rate was 20.5% (17.6% in elective vs 28.7% in urgent cases; P = .08), whereas 2.9% of patients presented paraplegia (1.3% in elective and 7.1% in urgent cases; P = .03). The mean follow-up was 16 ± 5 months. Survival was 75.0% (standard error, 4.0%) and freedom from reintervention was 73.3% (standard error, 4.4%) at 36 months. ASA IV and urgent repair were detected as independent factors related to early mortality and MAE, whereas ruptured aneurysm status was related to spinal cord ischemia evolution. ConclusionsEndovascular repair for types I through III TAAAs provides encouraging early outcomes in terms of mortality, MAE, and paraplegia, especially in an elective setting. Setting of repair and baseline ASA score should be taken into consideration during decision-making.

Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage and spinal cord ischemia in thoracic and thoracoabdominal endovascular procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is one of the most devastating complications of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) has been shown to decrease the risk of SCI in open thoracic aortic procedures; however, its utility in TEVAR remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to determine the role of prophylactic CSFD in preventing SCI in TEVAR. A literature search of five databases was performed and all studies published before September 2022 that reported SCI rates in TEVAR patients undergoing prophylactic CSFD were included. A random effects meta-analysis of means or proportions was performed for single-arm data. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported for comparisons between groups. A total of 4,793 patients undergoing TEVAR from 40 studies were included. The mean age was 68.8 years and 70.9% of patients were male. The overall SCI rate was 3.5%, with a 1.3% rate of immediate SCI and a 1.9% rate of delayed SCI. There were no significant differences in SCI rates between prophylactic CSFD patients and non-drained patients. Routine CSFD did not have a significant impact on SCI rates compared to non-drained patients. There was an increased rate of transient SCI with selective CSFD compared to non-drained patients (OR 2.08; 95% CI: 1.06-4.08; P=0.03). The most common drain-related complication was spinal headache (4.3%). The major complication rate was 1.6%, of which epidural or spinal hematoma (0.9%) was the most common, followed by intracranial or subdural hemorrhage (0.8%) and paraparesis or paraplegia (0.8%). This study found no significant difference in SCI rates between prophylactic CSFD patients and their non-drained counterparts. CSFD is associated with a small but non-negligible risk of serious complications. Multi-center randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to help stratify the risk of both SCI and CSFD-related complications in patients undergoing endovascular aortic procedures.

Incidence and Risk Factors for Necessitating Cerebrospinal Fluid Diversion Following Medulloblastoma Surgery in Children

BackgroundThere are insufficient data on pediatric patients with medulloblastoma who require cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion following resection. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the incidence and the characteristics associated with it in this subset of patients. MethodsWe conducted a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study of patients aged 18 years or less who underwent medulloblastoma resection at our department between 2010 and 2021. The primary outcome was the incidence of CSF diversion surgery required after resection. Participant demographics, tumor biology, and interventions were analyzed using univariate- and multivariate-adjusted models. ResultsOf the 183 patients admitted to our department, 131 (71.6%) participated in this study. The incidence of permanent CSF diversion was 26.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 18.7 to 34.3). Factors independently associated with requirement of permanent CSF diversion were medulloblastoma volume >46.4 cm3 (odds ratio [OR]: 2.919, 95% CI: 1.191 to 7.156) and CSF channel invasion (OR: 2.849, 95% CI: 1.142 to 7.102). The duration of manifestation may be a covariate of tumor volume with increased risk of requirement for permanent CSF diversion (OR: 1.006, 95% CI: 1.000 to 1.013), and tumor volume may be a predictor in patients who underwent subtotal resection (OR: 4.900, 95% CI: 0.992 to 24.208, P = 0.05). Finally, patients who required permanent CSF diversion were divided according to medulloblastoma molecular subgroups, and no significant differences were found. ConclusionWe report major predictive factors for permanent CSF diversion surgery in patients with medulloblastoma. Our study suggests that the presence of postresection hydrocephalus is not high enough to warrant permanent, prophylactic CSF diversion in all patients.

Spinal cord ischemia rates and prophylactic spinal drainage in patients treated with fenestrated/branched endovascular repair for thoracoabdominal aneurysms

ObjectiveSpinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a devastating complication after thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair. The benefit of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (pCSFD) to prevent SCI is still under investigation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the SCI rate and the impact of pCSFD following complex endovascular repair (fenestrated or branched endovascular repair [F/BEVAR]) for type I to IV TAAA. MethodsThe STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was followed. A single-center retrospective study was conducted, including all consecutive patients, managed for TAAA type I to IV using F/BEVAR, between January 1, 2018, and November 1, 2022, for degenerative and post-dissection aneurysms. Patients with juxta- or pararenal aneurysms were excluded, as well as cases managed urgently for aortic rupture or acute dissection. After 2020, pCSFD in type I to III TAAAs was abandoned and replaced by therapeutic CSFD (tCSFD), performed only in patients presenting SCI. The primary outcome was the perioperative SCI rate for the entire cohort and the role of pCSFD for type I to III TAAAs. ResultsIn total, 198 patients were included (mean age, 71.1±3.4 years; 81.8% males), including 50.5% with type I to III TAAA. The primary technical success was 94.9%. The perioperative mortality was 2.5%. and the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate was 10.6%; 4.5% presented SCI of any type (2.5% paraplegia). When comparing the SCI group with the remaining cohort, patients with SCI presented higher MACE (66.7% vs 7.9%; P < .001) rate and longer intensive care unit stay (3.5 vs 1 day; P = .002). Following type I to III repair, similar SCI, paraplegia, and paraplegia with no recovery rates were reported in the pCSFD and tCSFD groups (7.3% vs 5.1%; P = .66; 4.8% vs 3.3%; P = .72; and 2% vs 0%; P = .37). ConclusionsThe incidence of SCI after TAAA I to IV endovascular repair was low. SCI was associated with significantly increased MACE and intensive care unit stay. The prophylactic use of CSFD in type I to III TAAAs was not associated with lower SCI rates and may not be justified routinely.

Spinal drain-related complications after complex endovascular aortic repair using a prophylactic automated volume-directed drainage protocol

ObjectiveA common measure to lower the risk for spinal cord ischemia (SCI) during complex endovascular aortic repair (cEVAR) is prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD). This method has caused controversy because of drain-related complications. Spinal drains are usually pressure directed. The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of CSFD-related complications and SCI within the context of an automated volume-directed drain protocol. MethodsThis is a retrospective, single-center study of all cEVARs with CSFD at a tertiary vascular center between January 2014 and December 2020. Demographics, complications, and spinal drain data were recorded. All drainages were volume based using an automatic drainage system (LiquoGuard7; Möller Medical GmbH). Spinal drain complications were categorized as disabling and nondisabling according to the modified Rankin scale. The primary end point was any CSFD-related complication. ResultsA total of 448 cEVAR patients were identified, of whom 147 (32.8%) had prophylactic CSFD. The mean age was 69 years (63% male). The most common pathology (61%) was thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm, and the most common procedure was branched EVAR (55.1%). Eighteen (12.2%) patients developed a CSFD-related complication, whereof three (2%) were disabling. Nineteen (13%) patients developed SCI: 12 (8.4%) paraparetic, 5 (3.4%) paraplegic, and 2 (1.4%) paresthesias. Of these, 13 (68%) had full reversal of symptoms, whereas 6 patients (4%) had residual symptoms and were deemed disabling. Drain-related complications were more common in patients with SCI (31.6%) compared with those without (9.4%, P = .014). In the latter group, only two patients (1.6%) developed a disabling drain-related complication. ConclusionsSelective use of prophylactic, automated volume-directed CSFD in patients at high risk for SCI was associated with a high incidence of complications and should be used with caution. Among those developing SCI, reversal was achieved frequently with increased CSFD volume, but at the price of more bleeding complications.

Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage for Prevention of Spinal Cord Ischemia in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Surgery-Pros and Cons.

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) carries a risk of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) which exerts a devastating impact on patient's quality of life and life expectancy. Although routine prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage is not unequivocally supported by current data, several studies have demonstrated favorable outcomes. Patients at high risk for SCI following TEVAR likely will benefit from prophylactic CSF drains. However, the intervention is not risk free, and thorough risk/benefit analysis should be individualized to each patient.

Con: Lumbar Drains Should Routinely Be Placed by a Landmark Approach and Not by Fluoroscopic Guidance for Elective Thoracic Aortic Repairs

SPINAL CORD ISCHEMIA (SCI) after thoracoabdominal aortic repair is a well-known complication of both open and endovascular surgery, with reported rates as high as 5%-to-21% after open repair. 1 Gravereaux EC Faries PL Burks JA et al. Risk of spinal cord ischemia after endograft repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm. Jour of Vasc Surg. 2001; 34: 997-1003 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (260) Google Scholar Resultant morbidity, including paraparesis and paraplegia, are devastating, and a fair amount of research has gone into developing strategies for mitigating SCI-related complications. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) with the placement of lumbar drains (LDs) is considered the current recommendation for both prevention and treatment of SCI in high-risk patients. 2 Coselli JS LeMaire SA Koksoy C et al. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage reduces paraplegia after thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: results of a randomized clinical trial. J Vasc Surg. 2002; 35: 631-639 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (520) Google Scholar ,3 Hiratzka LF Bakris GL Beckman JA et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine. Circulation. 2010; 121: e266-e369 Crossref PubMed Scopus (1914) Google Scholar While there is some controversy over the utility of CSFD for endovascular repairs, it is still a widely accepted practice that is performed frequently for patients at high risk of developing SCI postrepair. 4 Isaak RS Furman W. Con: Patients at risk for spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repairs should not receive prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2015; 29: 1381-1383 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar Protocols regarding the placement of LDs can vary by institution, whereby some centers may routinely use imaging guidance for the procedure. In this review, the authors examine the specifics of using fluoroscopic guidance for the preoperative placement of LDs in patients who are at a high risk of developing SCI after thoracoabdominal aortic repair. It is the authors’ belief that the universal use of fluoroscopic guidance is unnecessary, potentially harmful, confers additional expense, and is unsupported by the current body of evidence.

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

PER THE SOCIETY for Vascular Surgery clinical guidelines, use of cerebrospinal fluid drains (CSFDs) should be considered for appropriately-selected patients undergoing extensive aortic repair. 1 Upchurch GR Escobar GA Azizzadeh A et al. Society for Vascular Surgery clinical practice guidelines of thoracic endovascular aortic repair for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2021; 73: 55S-83S Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (90) Google Scholar Use of CSFDs enhances spinal cord perfusion pressure, thus ameliorating the detrimental effects in vulnerable watershed regions caused by the surgical reduction in blood supply, and thereby preventing devastating spinal cord ischemia (SCI). It is important to note that patients who experience SCI after aortic repairs have significantly worse long-term survival than those without this complication. More importantly, patients who have a return of neurologic function after SCI can anticipate similar life expectancy compared to those without SCI. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that prophylactic use of CSFDs in selected high-risk patients undergoing aortic repairs reduces the incidence of postoperative SCI. 2 DeSart K Scali ST Feezor RJ et al. Fate of patients with spinal cord ischemia complicating thoracic endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2013; 58 (e2): 635-642 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (77) Google Scholar A recent meta-analysis that included 3,561 patients from 34 studies, demonstrated a lower incidence of SCI when CSFDs were placed routinely, as opposed to use only in patients meeting specified criteria. 3 Zhang Z Zhou Y Lin S et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of association of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage in preventing spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair. J Vasc Surg. 2022; 75 (e5): 1478-1489 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar Hence, the use of CSFDs will be warranted in selected patients undergoing aortic repairs who are at a high risk of SCI. 4 Arora H Ullery BW Kumar PA et al. Pro: Patients at risk for spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repairs should receive prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2015; 29: 1376-1380 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar Although CSFDs are an essential tool in the prevention of SCI caused by the surgery, CSFD placement is not without risk. Rong et al. published a meta-analysis that included 4,714 patients across 34 studies who underwent open and endovascular aortic repairs with CSFDs. 5 Rong LQ Kamel MK Rahouma M et al. Cerebrospinal-fluid drain-related complications in patients undergoing open and endovascular repairs of thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aortic pathologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2018; 120: 904-913 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (49) Google Scholar This analysis focused on CSFD-related complications, with a 6.5% rate of pooled events, 2.5% of which represented severe complications, including epidural hematoma, intracranial hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, meningitis, and/or catheter-related neurologic deficit. Risk factors for increased technical difficulty or even failed CSFD placement included atypical anatomy, such as from prior lumbar spine surgery, osteoarthritis or scoliosis, and poor surface landmarks, as can occur with a higher body mass index. 6 Awad H Ramadan ME Tili E et al. Fluoroscopic-guided lumbar spinal drain insertion for thoracic aortic aneurysm surgery. Anesth Analg. 2017; 125: 1219-1222 Crossref PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar

Aggressive use of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage to prevent spinal cord ischemia during thoracic endovascular aortic repair is not supportive.

We investigated whether prophylactic preoperative cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) was effective in preventing spinal cord ischemia (SCI) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair of degenerative descending thoracic aortic aneurysms, excluding dissecting aneurysms. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair involving proximal landing zones 3 and 4 between 2009 and 2020. Eighty-nine patients with preemptive CSFD [68 men; median (range) age, 76.0 (71.0-81.0) years] and 115 patients without CSFD [89 men; median (range) age, 77.0 (74.0-81.5) years] were included in this study. Among them, 59 from each group were matched based on propensity scores to regulate for differences in backgrounds. The incidence rate of SCI was similar: 8/89 (9.0%) in the CSFD group and 6/115 (5.2%) in the non-CSFD group (P = 0.403). Shaggy aorta (odds ratio, 5.13; P = 0.004) and iliac artery access (odds ratio, 5.04; P = 0.005) were identified as positive predictors of SCI. Other clinically important confounders included Adamkiewicz artery coverage (odds ratio, 2.53; P = 0.108) and extensive stent graft coverage (&gt;8 vertebrae) (odds ratio, 1.41; P = 0.541) were not statistically significant. Propensity score matching yielded similar incidence of SCI: 4/59 (6.8%) in the CSFD group and 3/59 (5.1%) in the non-CSFD group (P = 0.697). Aggressive use of prophylactic CSFD was not supportive in patients without complex risks of SCI.

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

ObjectiveSpinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is associated with permanent neurologic deficit and decreased survival. Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage (CSFD) in TEVAR is controversial. We evaluated the usage of CSFD in TEVAR at our tertiary aortic center.MethodsOur institutional TEVAR database was reviewed to determine the frequency of CSFD usage/complications. Complications were categorized as mild (headache/CSF leak not requiring intervention, urinary retention), moderate (headache/CSF leak requiring intervention, drain malfunction requiring replacement), or severe (intrathecal hemorrhage, CSFD-attributable neurologic deficit). The relationships between CSFD complications and patient/procedural characteristics, CSFD placement timing, and survival were analyzed.ResultsNine hundred thirty-six TEVAR procedures were performed in 869 patients from 2011 to 2020. Three hundred ninety CSFD drains were placed in 373 (41.7%) TEVAR patients. Most CSFD drains (89.5%) were pre-TEVAR. Most post-TEVAR drains were placed for new SCI symptoms (n = 21). Twenty-five patients (6.4%) suffered 32 CSFD complications. Most (n = 17) were mild in severity. Severe CSFD complications occurred in 5/432 (1.1% CSF drains) patients. No patient/procedural characteristics were predictive of CSFD complications. Post implant CSFD placement for new SCI symptoms conferred an increased risk of CSFD complication (odds ratio, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.42-19.6; P < .01). The long-term survival of the CSFD complication cohort did not differ from the overall population.ConclusionsPost-TEVAR CSFD placement for new SCI symptoms was associated with substantially greater risk of CSFD complications. Avoidance of post-implant therapeutic drain placement might be the key to prevention of CSFD complications, favoring a strategy of selective pre-implant drain placement in patients at higher risk for SCI.

Dynamics of Selected Biomarkers in Cerebrospinal Fluid During Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair – A Pilot Study

Ischemic spinal cord injury (SCI) is a serious complication of complex aortic repair. Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage, used to decrease lumbar cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) pressure, enables monitoring of CSF biomarkers that may aid in detecting impending SCI. We hypothesized that biomarkers, previously evaluated in traumatic SCI and brain injury, would be altered in CSF over time following complex endovascular aortic repair (cEVAR). To examine if a chosen cohort of CSF biomarker correlates to SCI and warrants further research. A prospective observational study on patients undergoing cEVAR with extensive aortic coverage. Vital parameters and CSF samples were collected on ten occasions during 72 hours post-surgery. A panel of ten biomarkers were analyzed (Neurofilament Light Polypeptide (NFL), Tau, Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein (GFAP), Soluble Amyloid Precursos Protein (APP) α and β, Amyloid β 38, 40 and 42 (Aβ38, 40 and 42), Chitinase-3-like protein 1 (CHI3LI or YKL-40), Heart-type fatty acid binding protein (H-FABP).). Nine patients (mean age 69, 7 males) were included. Median total aortic coverage was 68% [33, 98]. One patient died during the 30-day post-operative period. After an initial stable phase for the first few postoperative hours, most biomarkers showed an upward trend compared with baseline in all patients with >50% increase in value for NFL in 5/9 patients, in 7/9 patients for Tau and in 5/9 patients for GFAP. One patient developed spinal cord and supratentorial brain ischemia, confirmed with MRI. In this case, NF-L, GFAP and tau were markedly elevated compared with non-SCI patients (maximum increase compared with baseline in the SCI patient versus mean value of the maximal increase for all other patients: NF-L 367% vs 79%%, GFAP 95608% versus 3433%, tau 1020% vs 192%). This study suggests an increase in all ten studied CSF biomarkers after coverage of spinal arteries during endovascular aortic repair. However, the pilot study was not able to establish a specific correlation between spinal fluid biomarker elevation and clinical symptoms of SCI due to small sample size and event rate.

Early and Midterm Results of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in Patients with Marfan Syndrome

Objective To evaluate the early and midterm results of surgical repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm(TAAA)in patients with Marfan syndrome(MFS). Methods The clinical data of patients with MFS undergoing TAAA repair in Fuwai Hospital between January 2009 and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed.These patients were divided into two groups:MFS group(n=58)and non-MFS group(n=98).The baseline data,early postoperative results,and midterm follow-up outcomes were compared between these two groups. Results MFS patients were significantly younger(32 years old vs. 45 years old,t=9.603,P=0.000)and more frequently had a history of aortic aneurysm or dissection(19% vs. 0,χ 2=19.996,P=0.000)than non-MFS patients.However,the proportions of males and smokers were significantly lower when compared with non-MFS patients(55.2% vs. 80.6%,χ 2=11.489,P=0.001;13.8% vs. 46.9%,χ 2=17.686,P=0.001).There was no significant difference in proportion of emergency operation,prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage,operation time,intra-operative circulation management,and intra-operative blood transfusion(all P>0.05).The 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower in MFS group than in non-MFS group(0 vs. 9.2%, [Formula: see text]=5.034,P=0.025). Conclusions For patients with MFS,TAAA repair provides lower 30-day mortality and comparative middle-term survival.However,the re-intervention rate is higher among MFS patients,highlighting the importance of close follow-up.

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

Adjuncts for early detection and treatment of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) in thoracic aortic surgery are supported by robust clinical experience in open repair. The utility of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage and neurophysiologic monitoring (NPM) in thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is less clear. The purpose of this investigation is to determine the influence of a selective institutional spinal cord protection protocol using prophylactic NPM and CSF on outcomes for standard TEVAR. Patients undergoing standard TEVAR entered into a prospectively maintained database from a single institution from 2007 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative characteristics, aneurysm extent, and etiology were reviewed. Utilization of CSF drains including volume of fluid removed, duration of drainage, and catheter-related complications were collected. NPM data were reviewed to determine the influence on intraoperative management. Exact logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of SCI. Of 223 patients undergoing TEVAR, 130 met inclusion criteria for the study. CSF drains were used in 71 patients (54.6%), and 56 of 130 (43%) had NPM. SCI occurred in 7 patients (5.4%), of whom 5 had partial or complete recovery. Median time to symptoms of SCI was delayed in all cases (median 52hr, range 8-312), and none of the 4 of 7 patients with adjunct NPM demonstrated intraoperative changes. Intraoperative changes in NPM occurred in 26 (46%), and represented unilateral leg ischemia in all but 2 cases. In both patients, changes consistent with SCI were associated with intraoperative hypotension and resolved with blood pressure augmentation. Neither patient developed postoperative SCI. Median length of stay (22 vs. 9days, P=0.012), operative room time (262 vs. 209, P=0.040), and perioperative mortality (28.6% vs. 4.1%, P=0.046) were significantly higher for patients with SCI versus those without. Length of aortic coverage was found to be the sole independent predictor of SCI (odds ratio 8.2, P=0.026). Complications related to CSF drainage occurred in 4 patients (5.6%) with major complications occurring in 2 patients (2.8%), including 1 with an intrathecal hematoma and permanent bilateral paraparesis. Selective use of prophylactic CSF drainage in TEVAR was associated with moderate risk and questionable benefit. The use of neurophysiological monitoring allowed for early detection and treatment of spinal ischemia, but its utility is limited by logistical factors and to the minority of patients with intraoperative spinal ischemic events.

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

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