Dataset Information

Safety of perioperative cerebrospinal fluid drain as a protective strategy during descending and thoracoabdominal open aortic repair.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We present our experience with routine application of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drain (CSFD) during open aortic repair.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 100 patients with descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA) or thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) or who underwent CSFD insertion before open repair between 2006 and 2017. All CSFDs were inserted by the cardiovascular anesthesia team. The goal was to keep intracranial pressure <10 mm Hg during the surgical procedure by draining CSF at a rate of 20 to 30 mL/h. Postoperatively, CSFD was set to maintain the lumbar pressure <10 mm Hg to reduce the risk of postoperative paraplegia. CSFD was part of our standard cord protection regimen.

Results

The mean patient age was 65.4 ± 11.7 years, and 60 (60%) were male. A CSFD was successfully inserted in all patients. The mean hospital length of stay was 11.9 ± 11.8 days, and hospital mortality was 6%. Postoperative transient paresis was observed in 4 patients (4%), and permanent paraplegia was seen in 2 (2%). CSFD-related complications were reported in 14 patients (14%). Complications included persistent CSF leakage and blood-tinged CSF with and without intracranial hemorrhage and spinal cutaneous fistula in 7 (7%), 9 (9%), and 1 (1%), respectively. Long-term survival was excellent (68.4% at 10 years).

Conclusions

CSFD is a safe practice when applied routinely as an adjunct strategy to prevent paraplegia in surgical management of DTAA and TAAA. We feel that this contributed to good early and late clinical results.

SUBMITTER: Abdelbaky M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8300913 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOpen surgical repair (OSR) for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAA) is associated with a high pulmonary and renal morbidity rate. Ischemic preconditioning (IPC) is a mechanism of protection against the deleterious effects of ischemia-reperfusion. To our knowledge IPC has never been tested during OSR for TAA.MethodsThe primary objective of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of IPC during OSR for TAA with respect to acute kidney injury (AKI) according to KDIGO and pneumonia/prolonged ventilation-time during the first 8 postoperative days. The secondary objectives are to compare both arms with respect to cardiac complications within 48 h, renal and pulmonary complications within 21 days and mortality at 60 days. To assess the efficacy of IPC with respect to pulmonary and renal morbidity, a cox model for competing risks will be used. Assuming that the event occurs among 36% of the patients when no IPC is performed, the allocation of 55 patients to each arm should allow detecting a hazard ratio of at least 2.75 with a power of 80% when admitting 5% for an error of first kind. This means that 110 patients, enrolled in this multicenter study, may be randomised within 36 months of the first randomization. Randomization will be performed to allocate patients either to surgery with preconditioning before aortic cross clamping (Arm 1) or to surgery without preconditioning before aortic cross clamping (Arm 2). Randomization takes place during the intervention after intravenous injection of heparin, or after the start of femoral assistance. The procedure for IPC will be a supra-visceral thoracic aortic cross clamping for 5 min followed by an unclamping period of 5 min. This procedure will be repeated twice before starting thoracic aortic cross clamping needed to perform surgery.ConclusionsOur hypothesis is that ischemic preconditioning could reduce clinical morbidity and the incidence of lung damage associated with supra-visceral aortic clamping.Trial registrationEPICATAStudy registered in ClinicalTrial.gov / number: NCT03718312 on Oct.24.2018 URL number.

Project description:ImportanceAfter aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, the use of lumbar drains has been suggested to decrease the incidence of delayed cerebral ischemia and improve long-term outcome.ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of early lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainage added to standard of care in patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.Design, setting, and participantsThe EARLYDRAIN trial was a pragmatic, multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized clinical trial with blinded end point evaluation conducted at 19 centers in Germany, Switzerland, and Canada. The first patient entered January 31, 2011, and the last on January 24, 2016, after 307 randomizations. Follow-up was completed July 2016. Query and retrieval of data on missing items in the case report forms was completed in September 2020. A total of 20 randomizations were invalid, the main reason being lack of informed consent. No participants meeting all inclusion and exclusion criteria were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. Exclusion of patients was only performed in per-protocol sensitivity analysis. A total of 287 adult patients with acute aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage of all clinical grades were analyzable. Aneurysm treatment with clipping or coiling was performed within 48 hours.InterventionA total of 144 patients were randomized to receive an additional lumbar drain after aneurysm treatment and 143 patients to standard of care only. Early lumbar drainage with 5 mL per hour was started within 72 hours of the subarachnoid hemorrhage.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcome, defined as modified Rankin Scale score of 3 to 6 (range, 0 to 6), obtained by masked assessors 6 months after hemorrhage.ResultsOf 287 included patients, 197 (68.6%) were female, and the median (IQR) age was 55 (48-63) years. Lumbar drainage started at a median (IQR) of day 2 (1-2) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. At 6 months, 47 patients (32.6%) in the lumbar drain group and 64 patients (44.8%) in the standard of care group had an unfavorable neurological outcome (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.98; absolute risk difference, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.23 to -0.01; P = .04). Patients treated with a lumbar drain had fewer secondary infarctions at discharge (41 patients [28.5%] vs 57 patients [39.9%]; risk ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.99; absolute risk difference, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.22 to 0; P = .04).Conclusion and relevanceIn this trial, prophylactic lumbar drainage after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage lessened the burden of secondary infarction and decreased the rate of unfavorable outcome at 6 months. These findings support the use of lumbar drains after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01258257.