Omar Chaudhary1, Aidan Sharkey1, Marc Schermerhorn2, Feroze Mahmood1, Maximilian Schaefer3, Ruma Bose1, Ameeka Pannu1, Huma Fatima1, Yanick Baribeau1, Santiago Krumm1, Peter Soden2, Ajith Thomas4, Jessica Cassavaugh1, Rayan Rashid1, Robina Matyal5. 1. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Cardiovascular Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 2. Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Cardiovascular Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Cardiovascular Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Anaesthesiology, Dusseldorf University Hospital, Dusseldorf, Germany. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 5. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Cardiovascular Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. Electronic address: rmatyal1@bidmc.harvard.edu.
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.
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.