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

Ann Vasc Surg. 2021 Apr:72:409-418. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2020.08.134. Epub 2020 Sep 11.

Abstract

Background: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) resulting in paraplegia is a devastating complication associated with thoracic endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (TEVAR) whose incidence has significantly declined over time. In this review, we present our experience with a multidisciplinary clinical protocol for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drain management in patients undergoing TEVAR. Furthermore, we aimed to characterize complications of CSF drain placement in a large, single center experience of patients who underwent TEVAR.

Methods: This retrospective review is of patients undergoing TEVAR with and without CSF drain placement between January 2014 and December 2019 at a single institution. Patient demographics, hospital course, and drain-related complications were analyzed to assess the incidence of CSF drain-related complications.

Results: A total of 235 patients were included in this study, of which 85 received CSF drains. Eighty patients (94.1%) were placed by anesthesiologists, while 5 (5.9%) were placed under fluoroscopic guidance by interventional neurosurgery. The most common level of placement was L3-L4 in 38 (44.7%) cases followed by L4-L5 in 36 (42.4%) cases. The mean duration of CSF drain was 1.9 ± 1.4 days. Complications due to CSF drainage occurred in 5 (5.9%) patients and included partial retainment of catheter, subdural edema, epidural hematoma, headache, and bleeding near the drain site. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 5.5% and did not differ between those who received a CSF drain and those who did not (P = 0.856). The overall incidence of SCI resulting in paraplegia was 1.7% in the studied patients.

Conclusions: A protocol-based CSF drainage program for spinal cord protection involves a multifaceted approach in identification and selection of patients meeting criteria for prophylactic drain placement, direct closed loop communication, and perioperative management by an experienced team. Despite the inherent advantages of CSF drain placement, it is not without complications, thus risk and benefit need to be weighed in context of the procedure and the patient with close communication and team approach.

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Aneurysm, False / diagnostic imaging
  • Aneurysm, False / mortality
  • Aneurysm, False / surgery
  • Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic / diagnostic imaging
  • Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic / mortality
  • Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic / surgery
  • Aortic Diseases / diagnostic imaging
  • Aortic Diseases / mortality
  • Aortic Diseases / surgery*
  • Aortic Dissection / diagnostic imaging
  • Aortic Dissection / mortality
  • Aortic Dissection / surgery
  • Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation* / adverse effects
  • Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation* / mortality
  • Clinical Decision-Making
  • Clinical Protocols
  • Drainage / adverse effects
  • Drainage / instrumentation*
  • Drainage / mortality
  • Endoleak / diagnostic imaging
  • Endoleak / mortality
  • Endoleak / surgery
  • Endovascular Procedures* / adverse effects
  • Endovascular Procedures* / mortality
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Paraplegia / etiology
  • Paraplegia / prevention & control*
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Risk Assessment
  • Risk Factors
  • Spinal Cord Ischemia / etiology
  • Spinal Cord Ischemia / prevention & control*
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Ulcer / diagnostic imaging
  • Ulcer / mortality
  • Ulcer / surgery