Protocolized Based Management of Cerebrospinal Fluid Drains in Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Procedures

A Multidisciplinary Protocolized Approach for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Management: A Retrospective Before-After Study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether implementation of a multidisciplinary protocol for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) management reduces rates of adverse complications.

DESIGN

A retrospective before-after study.

SETTING

A tertiary-care academic hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients who underwent open or endovascular rAAA repair; data were stratified into before-protocol implementation (group 1: 2015-2018) and after-protocol implementation (group 2: 2019-2022) groups.

INTERVENTION

The protocol details the workflow for vascular surgery, anesthesia, emergency department, and operating room staff for a rAAA case; training was accomplished through yearly workshops.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included all-cause morbidity and other major complications. Differences in postoperative complication rates between groups were assessed using Pearson's χ2 test. Of the 77 patients included undergoing rAAA repair, 41 (53.2%) patients were in group 1, and 36 (46.8%) patients were in group 2. Patients in group 2 had a significantly shorter median time to incision (1.0 v 0.7 hours, p = 0.022) and total procedure time (180.0 v 160.5 minutes, p = 0.039) for both endovascular and open repair. After protocol implementation, patients undergoing endovascular repair exhibited significantly lower rates of mortality (46.2% v 20.0%, p = 0.048), all-cause morbidity (65.4% v 44.0%, p = 0.050), and renal complications (15.4% v 0.0%, p = 0.036); patients undergoing open repair for a rAAA exhibited significantly lower rates of mortality (53.3% v 27.3%, p = 0.018) and bowel ischemia (26.7% v 0.0%, p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a multidisciplinary protocol for the management of a rAAA may reduce rates of adverse complications and improve the quality of care.

Systematic Review of the Effect of Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage on Outcomes After Endovascular Descending Thoracic/Thoraco-Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate whether prophylactic use of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage in endovascular descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA) and thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair contributes to a lower rate of post-operative spinal cord ischaemia (SCI).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL.

REVIEW METHODS

A literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42021245893). Risk of bias was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), and the certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. A proportion meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled rate and 95% confidence interval (CI) of both early and late onset SCI. Pooled outcome estimates were calculated using the odds ratio (OR) and associated 95% CI. The primary outcome was SCI, both early and lateonset. Secondary outcomes were complications of CSF drainage, length of hospital stay, and peri-operative (30 day or in hospital) mortality rates.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight observational, retrospective studies were included, reporting 4 814 patients (2 599 patients with and 2 215 without CSF drainage). The NOS showed a moderate risk of bias. The incidence of SCI was similar in patients with CSF drainage (0.05, 95% CI 0.03 ‒ 0.08) and without CSF drainage (0.05, 95% CI 0.00 ‒ 0.14). No significant decrease in SCI was found when using CSF drainage (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 ‒ 1.55, p = .35). The incidence rate of CSF drainage related complication was 0.10 (95% CI 0.04 ‒ 0.19). The 30 day and in hospital mortality rate with CSF drainage was 0.08 (95% CI 0.05 ‒ 0.12). The 30 day and in hospital mortality rate without CSF drainage and comparison with late mortality and length of hospital stay could not be determined due to lack of data. The quality of evidence was considered very low.

CONCLUSION

Pre-operative CSF drainage placement was not related to a favourable outcome regarding SCI rate in endovascular TAAA and DTAA repair. Due to the low quality of evidence, no clear recommendation on pre-operative use of CSF drainage placement can be made.

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.

Anesthetic Management for Endovascular Repair of Thoracic and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Aortic aneurysms-both abdominal and thoracic-are a significant cause of death and disability in the United States. Endovascular aneurysm repair has since become the preferred operative treatment of most thoracic and abdominal aneurysms because of a lower rate of complications and better outcomes compared with the open approach. Patients who present for endovascular aneurysm repair often have comorbid conditions related to their aortic pathology. These conditions should be evaluated and optimized before the procedure.

Simultaneous Endovascular Repair Is Not Associated With Increased Risk for Thoracic and Abdominal Aortic Pathologies: Early and Midterm Outcomes

Coexisting multilevel aortic pathologies were caused by atherosclerosis and hypertension and presented in a small subgroup of patients. Endovascular repair is a safe and effective treatment for a variety of aortic pathologies. However, fewer small series and cases were reported using simultaneous thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for both aortic segments. To determine the outcomes of simultaneous and separately TEVAR and EVAR treating for multilevel aortic pathologies. Between 2010 and 2020, 31 patients and 22 patients were treated by one-staged and two-staged repair, respectively at a single center. All patients had the concomitant thoracic and abdominal aortic disease (aortic dissection, aneurysms, and penetrating aortic ulcers). Compared with the patients with two-staged aortic repair, the one-staged repair patients were older (mean age, 68 vs. 57 years; P < 0.001) and had a larger preoperative maximal aortic diameter (67.03 ± 10.65 vs. 57.45 ± 10.36 mm; p = 0.002). The intraoperative and postoperative outcomes show that the procedure times and length of hospital stay (LOS) were longer in the two-staged group. There is no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups. In the follow up, the freedom from re–intervention and the mean survival rate for the one-staged group were 100 vs. 100%, 92.4 vs. 95%, and 88 vs. 88% at one, two, and 5 years, respectively, whereas the mean survival rate for the two-staged group was 86.4 vs. 90.5%, 87 vs. 90.5%, and 76 vs. 84% at one, two, and 5 years, respectively, all with no statistical difference. Combined TEVAR and EVAR can be performed successfully with minimal morbidity and mortality. The one-staged repair was not associated with the increased risk for multilevel aortic pathologies treatment.

Prior Infrarenal Aortic Surgery is Not Associated with Increased Risk of Spinal Cord Ischemia Following Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair and Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair

OBJECTIVES

Patients with prior infrarenal aortic intervention represent an increasing demographic of patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and/or complex EVAR. Studies have suggested that prior abdominal aortic surgery is a risk factor for spinal cord ischemia (SCI). However, these results are largely based on single-center experiences with limited multi-institutional and national data assessing clinical outcomes in these patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of prior infrarenal aortic surgery on SCI.

METHODS

The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database was retrospectively reviewed to identify all patients ≥18 years old undergoing TEVAR/complex EVAR from January 2012 to June 2020. Patients with previous thoracic or suprarenal aortic repairs were excluded. Baseline and procedural characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared by group: TEVAR/complex EVAR with or without previous infrarenal aortic repair. The primary outcome was postoperative SCI. Secondary outcomes included postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), bowel ischemia, renal ischemia, and 30-day mortality. Multivariate regression was used to determine independent predictors of postoperative SCI. Additional analysis was performed for patients undergoing isolated TEVAR.

RESULTS

A total of 9506 patients met the inclusion criteria: 8691 (91.4%) had no history of infrarenal aortic repair and 815 (8.6%) had previous infrarenal aortic repair. Patients with previous infrarenal repair were older with an increased prevalence of chronic kidney disease (p=0.001) and cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and smoking history (p<0.001). These patients presented with larger maximal aortic diameters (6.06±1.47 cm versus 5.15±1.76 cm; p<0.001) and required more stent grafts (p<0.001) with increased intraoperative blood transfusion requirements (p<0.001), and longer procedure times (p<0.001). Univariate analysis demonstrated no difference in postoperative SCI, postoperative hospital LOS, bowel ischemia, or renal ischemia between the two groups. Thirty-day mortality was significantly higher in patients with prior infrarenal repair (p=0.001). On multivariate regression, prior infrarenal aortic repair was not a predictor of postoperative SCI, while aortic dissection (odds ratio [OR] 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.26-2.16, p<0.001), number of stent grafts deployed (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.30-1.62, p<0.001), and units of packed red blood cells transfused intraoperatively (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.03-1.73, p=0.032) were independent predictors of SCI.

CONCLUSIONS

Although TEVAR/complex EVAR patients with prior infrarenal aortic repair constituted a sicker cohort with higher 30-day mortality, the rate of SCI was comparable to patients without prior repair. Previous infrarenal repair was not associated with risk of SCI.

Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage in Thoracic and Thoracoabdominal Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Survey of Current Clinical Practice in European Medical Centers

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this survey was to evaluate the daily clinical practice in European hospitals regarding the modalities to prevent spinal cord ischemia, with an emphasis on cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD), in patients undergoing thoracic and thoracoabdominal endovascular repair.

DESIGN

A 21-item online survey on current practice of spinal cord protection with an emphasis on CSFD.

SETTING

Online service using Castor EDC software.

PARTICIPANTS

Members of the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and European Society of Vascular Surgeons.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

One hundred eighty invitations were sent and 104 were used for analysis. A majority of respondents used a written protocol for spinal cord protection during endovascular thoracic and thoracoabdominal repair (81/104 = 78%). The most common protective measures used were CSFD (79/81 = 98%), controlled hypertension (59/81 = 73%), drugs (11/81 = 14%), and hypothermia (6/81 = 7%). The two most common indications for placement of a spinal catheter were the length of the stent (83/104 = 80%) and location of aneurysm (71/104 = 68%). Preventive placement of the spinal drain (96/104) is the most common approach. In the subgroup of high-volume centers, 86% (12/14) of the respondents used a written protocol and all protocols include CSFD. Ninety-two percent (11/12) had included controlled arterial hypertension in the protocol compared with 70% (48/69) of the non-high-volume centers respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of European centers use a written protocol that includes CSFD. This survey showed the similarities and differences in the management of CSFD in patients undergoing endovascular thoracic and thoracoabdominal repair.

Spinal Cord Protection for Thoracoabdominal Aortic Surgery

Open and endovascular repairs of the descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aorta are associated with a substantial risk of spinal cord injury, namely paraplegia. Endovascular repairs seem to have a lower incidence of spinal cord injury, but there have been no randomized trials comparing outcomes of open and endovascular repairs. Paraplegia occurs when collateral blood supply to the anterior spinal artery is impaired. The risk of spinal cord injury can be mitigated with perioperative protocols that include drainage of cerebrospinal fluid, avoidance of hypotension and anemia, intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring, and advanced surgical techniques. Drainage of cerebrospinal fluid using a spinal drain decreases the risk of spinal cord ischemia by improving spinal cord perfusion pressure. However, cerebrospinal fluid drainage has risks including neuraxial and intracranial bleeding, and these risks need to be carefully weighed against its potential benefit. This review discusses current surgical management of descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic disease, incidence of and risk factors for spinal cord injury, and elements of spinal cord protection protocols that pertain to anesthesiologists, with a focus on cerebrospinal fluid drainage.