Selective Versus Routine Spinal Drain Use for Fenestrated/Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair (F-BEVAR)

Neuromonitoring during Endovascular Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a potentially devastating complication of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR). The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of neuromonitoring modalities to mitigate the risk of SCI during TEVAR and F-BEVAR procedures.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a detailed literature search of databases including PubMed, MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL, from 1998 to the present. Inclusion criteria were original research articles examining neuromonitoring during TEVAR and F-BEVAR. The primary outcome was the incidence of SCI, while the secondary outcome included early mortality. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

From 1,450 identified articles, 11 met inclusion criteria, encompassing data from 1,069 patients. Neuromonitoring modalities included motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs), and near-infrared spectroscopy. The combination of MEPs and SSEPs was most commonly used, with 93% sensitivity and 96% specificity for detecting SCI risks. SCI incidence ranged from 3.8 to 17.3%, with permanent deficits occurring in 2.7-5.8% of cases. In-hospital mortality ranged from 0.4 to 8%. Risk factors for SCI were identified, including operation duration and extent of aortic coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuromonitoring with MEPs and SSEPs appears to be effective in detecting perioperative SCI risk during TEVAR and F-BEVAR. However, discrepancies between neuromonitoring changes and actual SCI outcomes suggest the need for cautious interpretation. While the incidence of SCI remains variable, identified risk factors may guide clinical decisions, particularly in high-risk procedures. Future research should focus on prospective studies and randomized controlled trials to validate these findings and improve SCI prevention strategies in TEVAR and F-BEVAR.

How We Would Treat Our Own Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm

This manuscript is intended to provide a comprehensive review of the current state of knowledge on endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs). The management of these complex aneurysms requires an interdisciplinary and patient-specific approach in high-volume centers. An index case is used to discuss the diagnosis and treatment of a patient undergoing fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair for a TAAA.

Redo Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair (F-BEVAR) for Failed F-BEVAR

Failed fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) requiring a redo F-BEVAR is a rare event. In this study, we report 2 cases of a failed F-BEVAR secondary to a type IIIb endoleak from tears on the fabric graft successfully treated with redo F-BEVAR. This is a technically challenging procedure that requires meticulous planning, advanced imaging technologies and experienced operators. Redo F-BEVAR appears to be a feasible and safe treatment option. However, larger series and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm effectiveness and durability.

Incidence and risk factors for interval aortic events during staged fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Staged endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms with first-stage thoracic endovascular aortic repair may decrease the risk of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) associated with fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms or optimize the proximal landing zone in the cases requiring total aortic arch repair. However, a limitation of multistaged procedures is the risk of interval aortic events (IAEs) including mortality from a ruptured aneurysm. We aim to identify the incidence of and risk factors associated with IAEs during staged FB-EVAR.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective review of patients who underwent planned staged FB-EVAR from 2013 to 2021. Clinical and procedural details were reviewed. End points were the incidence of and risk factors associated with IAEs (defined as rupture, symptoms, and unexplained death) and outcomes in patients with or without IAEs.

RESULTS

Of 591 planned FB-EVAR patients, 142 underwent first-stage repairs. Twenty-two did not have a planned second stage because of frailty, preference, severe comorbidities, or complications after the first stage and were excluded. The remaining 120 patients (mean age: 73 ± 6 years, 51% female) were planned for second-stage completion FB-EVAR and comprised our cohort. The incidence of IAEs was 13% (16 of 120). This included confirmed rupture in 6 patients, possible rupture in 4, symptomatic presentation in 4, and early unexplained interval death with possible rupture in 2. The median time to IAEs was 17 days (range: 2-101 days), and the median time to uncomplicated completion repairs was 82 days (interquartile range: 30-147 days). Age, sex, and comorbidities were similar between the groups. There were no differences in familial aortic disease, genetically triggered aneurysms, aneurysm extent, or presence of chronic dissection. Patients with IAEs had significantly larger aneurysm diameters than those without IAEs (76.6 vs 66.5 mm, P ≤ .001). This difference persisted with indexing for body surface area (aortic size index: 3.9 vs 3.5 cm/m2, P = .04) and height (aortic height index: 4.5 vs 3.9 cm/m, P ≤ .001). IAE mortality was 69% (11 of 16) compared with no perioperative deaths for those with uncomplicated completion repairs.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of IAEs was 13% in patients planned for staged FB-EVAR. This represented a notable morbidity, including rupture, which must be balanced with SCI and landing zone optimization when planning repair. Larger aneurysms, especially when adjusted for body surface area, are associated with IAEs. Minimizing time between stages vs single-stage repairs for larger (>7 cm) complex aortic aneurysms in patients with reasonable SCI risk should be considered when planning repair.

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

OBJECTIVE

A 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.

METHODS

This 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.

RESULTS

A 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective 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.

Anaesthesia for vascular emergencies - a state of the art review

In this state-of-the-art review, we discuss the presenting symptoms and management strategies for vascular emergencies. Although vascular emergencies are best treated at a vascular surgical centre, patients may present to any emergency department and may require both immediate management and safe transport to a vascular centre. We describe the surgical and anaesthetic considerations for management of aortic dissection, aortic rupture, carotid endarterectomy, acute limb ischaemia and mesenteric ischaemia. Important issues to consider in aortic dissection are extent of the dissection and surgical need for bypasses in addition to endovascular repair. From an anaesthetist's perspective, aortic dissection requires infrastructure for massive transfusion, smooth management should an endovascular procedure require conversion to an open procedure, haemodynamic manipulation during stent deployment and prevention of spinal cord ischaemia. Principles in management of aortic rupture, whether open or endovascular treatment is chosen, include immediate transfer to a vascular care centre; minimising haemodynamic changes to reduce aortic shear stress; permissive hypotension in the pre-operative period; and initiation of massive transfusion protocol. Carotid endarterectomy for carotid stenosis is managed with general or regional techniques, and anaesthetists must be prepared to manage haemodynamic, neurological and airway issues peri-operatively. Acute limb ischaemia is a result of embolism, thrombosis, dissection or trauma, and may be treated with open repair or embolectomy, under either general or local anaesthesia. Due to hypercoagulability, there may be higher numbers of acutely ischaemic limbs among patients with COVID-19, which is important to consider in the current pandemic. Mesenteric ischaemia is a rare vascular emergency, but it is challenging to diagnose and associated with high morbidity and mortality. Several peri-operative issues are common to all vascular emergencies: acute renal injury; management of transfusion; need for heparinisation and reversal; and challenging postoperative care. Finally, the important development of endovascular techniques for repair in many vascular emergencies has improved care, and the availability of transoesophageal echocardiography has improved monitoring as well as aids in surgical placement of endovascular grafts and for post-procedural evaluation.

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.

Editor's Choice - PRINciples of optimal antithrombotiC therapy and coagulation managEment during elective fenestrated and branched EndovaScular aortic repairS (PRINCE2SS): An International Expert Based Delphi Consensus Study

OBJECTIVE

Management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing elective fenestrated branched endovascular aortic repair (F-BEVAR) is not standardised, nor are there any recommendations from current guidelines. By designing an international expert based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on the pre-, intra-, and post-operative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients scheduled for elective F-BEVAR in high volume centres.

METHODS

Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted on, using a four point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts' responses, only those statements reaching Grade A (full agreement ≥ 75%) or B (overall agreement ≥ 80% and full disagreement < 5%) were included in the final document. The round answers' consistency was graded using Cohen's k, the intraclass correlation coefficient, and, in case of double re-submission, the Fleiss k.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven experts were included in the final analysis and voted the initial 43 statements related to pre- (n = 15), intra- (n = 10), and post-operative (n = 18) management of antithrombotic drugs. At the end of the process, six statements (13%) were rejected, 20 statements (44%) received a Grade B consensus, and 18 statements (40%) reached a Grade A consensus. Most statements (27; 71%) exhibited very high or high consistency grades, and 11 (29%) a fair or poor grading. The intra-operative statements mostly concentrated on threshold for and monitoring of proper heparinisation. The pre- and post-operative statements mainly focused on indications for dual antiplatelet therapy and its management, considering the possible need for cerebrospinal fluid drainage.

CONCLUSION

Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide current clinical management of antithrombotic therapy for elective F-BEVAR. Future studies are needed to clarify the debated issues.