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

Trends in hospitalization of patients undergoing endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms based on cerebrospinal fluid drainage strategy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify trends in hospital (HLOS) and ICU (ICULOS) lengths of stay, and the relationship with cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) protocols in patients undergoing fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent elective FB-EVAR for extent I-IV TAAAs between 2008-2023 at a single aortic center of excellence was conducted. Patient demographics, cardiovascular comorbidities, surgical risk, technical details, CSFD strategy (prophylactic or therapeutic), procedural success, and perioperative outcomes were collected. Patients were divided into two groups based on CSFD protocol. Group 1 included patients treated before 2020 when prophylactic CSFD was performed widely, and Group 2 consisted of patients treated since 2020 with therapeutic CSFD. Primary endpoints were HLOS, ICULOS, major adverse events (MAE), and perioperative mortality.

RESULTS

FB-EVAR was performed in 702 patients; 412 underwent elective TAAA repair and were included in the analysis. Mean age was 73 years (SD±8) and 68% were males. Patient-specific manufactured devices were used in 252 patients (61%), physician-modified endografts in 110 (27%), and 50 patients (12%) were treated with off-the-shelf devices. Demographics, aneurysm extent, MAE (including spinal cord ischemia), and mortality were similar in both groups. A significant reduction in mean HLOS between the groups (9±9. vs 6±5 days, p = .02) coincided with decreased use of prophylactic CSFD (70% vs 1.2%, p < .001), with similar rates of SCI (7.6% vs 4.9%, p = .627) and ICULOS (3±3 vs 2.5±3, p = .19). Patients in the therapeutic drainage cohort (group 2) had a higher incidence of congestive heart failure (24% vs 11%, p = .003), hypercholesterolemia (91% vs 80%, p = .015), COPD (55% vs 37%, p = .004), and peripheral artery disease (39% vs 19%, p < .001) compared to group 1, suggesting treatment of a more complex patient cohort. On adjusted multivariable analysis accounting for ASA score, comorbidities, and device type, the difference in HLOS remained statistically significant (p = .01).

CONCLUSION

HLOS decreased over time in patients undergoing FB-EVAR for TAAA following transition from prophylactic to therapeutic CSFD protocol. This transition was the only modifiable, independent risk factor for shorter HLOS, without an increase in SCI, albeit with similar ICULOS.

Systematic review of the effect of cerebrospinal fluid drainage on outcomes after endovascular type B aortic dissection repair

OBJECTIVE

The 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).

METHODS

PubMed, 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).

RESULTS

A 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).

CONCLUSIONS

The 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.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Retrospective investigation of >400 patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair with or without cerebrospinal fluid drainage

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to analyse the risks and benefits of cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) placement in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2020, 411 patients underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair in 1 institution where 236 patients (57%) received a preoperative CSFD. Patient and outcome characteristics were retrospectively analysed and compared between patients with and without preoperative CSFD placement.

RESULTS

Preoperative CSFD was performed significantly more frequently in elective patients, especially those undergoing distal stent graft extension following frozen elephant trunk-stent placement (P < 0.001). Significantly fewer CSFD was placed in patients with acute aortic injury (P < 0.001). The incidence of permanent spinal cord ischaemia (SCI) was higher in patients without preoperative CSFD [10 patients (2%) vs 1 patient (0.2%), P = 0.001]. Postoperative CSFD was placed in 3 patients (0.7%). Severe CSFD-associated complications affected 2 patients (0.5%) namely, a subdural spinal haematoma causing permanent paraplegia in one of those 2 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CSFS placement is associated with low procedural risk and can potentially help to prevent SCI. However, the SCI incidence is most likely also associated with other preoperative factors including the patient's haemodynamics. Hence, a general recommendation for placing a preoperative CSFD cannot be made when relying on the present evidence.