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

OBJECTIVE: Spinal 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 ao...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Spratt, John R., Walker, Kristen L., Wallen, Tyler J., Neal, Dan, Zasimovich, Yury, Arnaoutakis, George J., Martin, Tomas D., Back, Martin R., Scali, Salvatore T., Beaver, Thomas M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Adult: Aorta
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9366624/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35967198
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xjtc.2022.05.001
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: Spinal 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. METHODS: Our 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. RESULTS: Nine 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. CONCLUSIONS: Post-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.

Ejemplares similares