Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Patients with Nontraumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Requiring an External Ventricular Drain.

BACKGROUND: Optimal pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis dosing is not well described in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) with an external ventricular drain (EVD). Our patients with SAH with an EVD who receive prophylactic enoxaparin are routinely monitored using timed anti-Xa levels. Our primary study goal was to determine the frequency of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and secondary intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) for this population of patients who received pharmacologic prophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients with SAH admitted to the neurocritical care unit at Emory University Hospital between 2012 and 2017. All patients with SAH who required an EVD were included. RESULTS: Of 1,351 patients screened, 868 required an EVD. Of these 868 patients, 627 received enoxaparin, 114 received UFH, and 127 did not receive pharmacologic prophylaxis. VTE occurred in 7.5% of patients in the enoxaparin group, 4.4% in the UFH group (p = 0.32), and 3.2% in the no VTE prophylaxis group (p = 0.08). Secondary ICH occurred in 3.83% of patients in the enoxaparin group, 3.51% in the UFH group (p = 1), and 3.94% in the no VTE prophylaxis group (p = 0.53). As steady-state anti-Xa levels increased from 0.1 units/mL to > 0.3 units/mL, there was a trend toward a lower incidence of VTE. However, no correlation was noted between rising anti-Xa levels and an increased incidence of secondary ICH. When compared, neither enoxaparin nor UFH use was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of VTE or an increased incidence of ICH. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study of patients with nontraumatic SAH with an EVD who received enoxaparin or UFH VTE prophylaxis or no VTE prophylaxis, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of VTE or secondary ICH. For patients receiving prophylactic enoxaparin, achieving higher steady-state target anti-Xa levels may be associated with a lower incidence of VTE without increasing the risk of secondary ICH.

Influence of cerebrospinal fluid drainage in the first days after aneurysm rupture on the severity of early brain injury following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

PURPOSE: Progressive cerebral edema with refractory intracranial hypertension (ICP) requiring decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) is a severe manifestation of early brain injury (EBI) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). The purpose of the study was to investigate whether a more pronounced cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage has an influence on cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) and the extent of EBI after aSAH. METHODS: Patients with aSAH and indication for ICP-monitoring admitted to our center between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively included. EBI was categorized based on intracranial blood burden, persistent loss of consciousness, and SEBES (Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Early Brain Edema Score) score on the third day after ictus. The draining CSF and vital signs such as ICP and CPP were documented daily. RESULTS: 90 out of 324 eligible aSAH patients (28%) were included. The mean age was 54.2 ± 11.9 years. DHC was performed in 24% (22/90) of patients. Mean CSF drainage within 72 h after ictus was 168.5 ± 78.5 ml. A higher CSF drainage within 72 h after ictus correlated with a less severe EBI and a less frequent need for DHC (r=-0.33, p = 0.001) and with a higher mean CPP on day 3 after ictus (r = 0.2351, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: A more pronounced CSF drainage in the first 3 days of aSAH was associated with higher CPP and a less severe course of EBI and required less frequently a DHC. These results support the hypothesis that an early and pronounced CSF drainage may facilitate blood clearance and positively influence the course of EBI.

Secondary normal pressure hydrocephalus following pituitary apoplexy: A case report.

Background: Although secondary normal pressure hydrocephalus (sNPH) can occur in various central nervous system diseases, there are no reports of sNPH caused by pituitary lesions. Herein, we present a unique case of sNPH caused by pituitary apoplexy. Case Description: A 70-year-old man was transferred to our hospital because of a sudden onset of headache and loss of consciousness. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) test showed slightly elevated cell counts and protein levels but a negative CSF culture test. Magnetic resonance imaging showed a dumbbell-like cystic lesion with hemorrhagic change at the sella turcica. From the above, the patient was diagnosed with aseptic meningitis caused by pituitary apoplexy. Pituitary hormone replacement therapy was undertaken, and his symptoms fully improved. However, two months later, he complained of a gait disturbance and incontinence that had gradually appeared. Brain imaging with computed tomography showed no ventricular enlargement compared with initial images, although the lateral ventricles were slightly enlarged. As a CSF drainage test improved his symptoms temporarily, sNPH with possible longstanding overt ventriculomegaly in adults (LOVA) background was suspected. We performed a lumboperitoneal shunt (LPS) placement, which improved his symptoms. Conclusion: This case suggests that sNPH can develop even after a small subarachnoid hemorrhage caused by a pituitary apoplexy in LOVA patients. If the aqueduct of Sylvius is open, sNPH with a LOVA background can be successfully treated with LPS placement.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cerebrospinal fluid drain-related mortality and morbidity after fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the incidence of cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD)-related complications specifically in patients who underwent fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (F/B-EVAR). This objective was chosen considering the limitations and uncertainties surrounding its efficacy in preventing spinal cord injury. METHODS: A systematic review following Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted (PROSPERO; #CRD42022359223). Literature searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were performed until May 1, 2023, focusing on studies published after January 1, 2000. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies reporting on F/B-EVAR, CSFD, and drain-related complications. Data extraction and quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were performed by multiple reviewers to ensure accuracy and reliability. A proportion meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled rate and 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary and secondary outcomes were CSFD-related mortality and morbidity, respectively. RESULTS: Six retrospective, observational, single-center studies were included, totaling 1079 patients and 730 CSFD placements (all prophylactic except for one). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale showed a high to moderate risk of bias. The analysis revealed a CSFD-related mortality rate of 1.4% (95% CI: 0.0-4.8; I2 = 67.7%) and an overall morbidity rate of 25.6% (95% CI: 13.6-39.7; I2 = 83.2%). The overall major, moderate, and minor estimated complication rates were 6.1% (95% CI: 4.1-8.5; I2 = 0%), 4.6% (95% CI: 2.4-7.3; I2 = 33.5%), and 26.4% (95% CI: 16.5-37.7; I2 = 84.9%), respectively. Severe complications included intracranial hemorrhage (2.8%), spinal hematoma (1.4%), subarachnoid hemorrhage (1.4%), and CSFD-related neurological deficits (1.1%). A pooled estimate of 11.4% for nonfunctioning drainage was found. CONCLUSIONS: F/B-EVAR patients showed a notable incidence of CSFD-related death and substantial morbidity. This study highlights the limitations of the available data, the high prevalence of complications associated with CSFD, and the need for further research to better understand the risks and benefits of CSFD in F/B-EVAR. This calls for careful consideration regarding the routine use of prophylactic drainage due to the accumulating evidence of the risks associated with CSFD without proven benefit in this specific context.

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.

Effectiveness of Cerebrospinal Fluid Lumbar Drainage Among Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Cerebral vasospasm in patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) continues to be a major source of morbidity despite significant clinical and basic science research. The removal of blood and its degradation products from the subarachnoid space through prophylactic lumbar drainage (LD) is a favorable option. However, several studies have delivered conflicting conclusions on its efficacy after aSAH. METHODS: Systematic searches of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were performed. The primary outcome was a good functional outcome (modified Rankin scale score, 0-2). Secondary outcomes included symptomatic vasospasm, secondary cerebral infarction, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies reporting on 2473 patients with aSAH were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the non-LD group, no significant differences were found in the rates of good functional outcomes in the LD group at discharge to 1 month (risk ratio [RR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-2.58) or at 6 months (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.97-1.41). These findings were consistent in the subgroup analyses of only randomized controlled trials or observational studies. LD was associated with lower rates of symptomatic vasospasm (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48-0.77), secondary cerebral infarction (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.79), and mortality at discharge to 1 month (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.82). The effect on mortality diminished at 6 months (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.34-1.45). However, when analyzing only randomized controlled trials, the benefit of LD on lower rates of mortality continued even at 6 months (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: For aSAH patients, the use of LD is associated with benefits in the rates of vasospasm, secondary cerebral infarctions, and mortality, without an increased risk of adverse events.

Treatment of wound infections linked to neurosurgical implants.

As neurosurgery has advanced technologically, more and more neurosurgical implants are being employed on an aging patient population with several comorbidities. As a result, there is a steady increase in the frequency of infections linked to neurosurgical implants, which causes serious morbidity and mortality as well as abnormalities of the skull and inadequate brain protection. We discuss infections linked to internal and external ventricular and lumbar cerebrospinal fluid drainages, neurostimulators, craniotomies, and cranioplasty in this article. Biofilms, which are challenging to remove, are involved in all implant-associated illnesses. It takes a small quantity of microorganisms to create a biofilm on the implant surface. Skin flora bacteria are implicated in the majority of illnesses. Microorganisms that cause disruptions in wound healing make their way to the implant either during or right after surgery. In about two thirds of patients, implant-associated infections manifest early (within the first month after surgery), whereas the remaining infections present later as a result of low-grade infections or by direct extension from adjacent infections (per continuitatem) to the implants due to soft tissue damage. Except for ventriculo-atrial cerebrospinal fluid shunts, neurosurgical implants are rarely infected by the haematogenous route. This research examines established and clinically validated principles that are applicable to a range of surgical specialties using implants to treat biofilm-associated infections in orthopaedic and trauma cases. Nevertheless, there is little evidence and no evaluation in sizable patient populations to support the success of this extrapolation to neurosurgical patients. An optimal microbiological diagnostic, which includes sonicating removed implants and extending culture incubation times, is necessary for a positive result. Additionally, a strategy combining surgical and antibiotic therapy is needed. Surgical procedures involve a suitable debridement along with implant replacement or exchange, contingent on the biofilm's age and the state of the soft tissue. A protracted biofilm-active therapy is a component of antimicrobial treatment, usually lasting 4-12 weeks. This idea is appealing because it allows implants to be changed or kept in place for a single surgical procedure in a subset of patients. This not only enhances quality of life but also lowers morbidity because each additional neurosurgical procedure increases the risk of secondary complications like intracerebral bleeding or ischemia.

Spinal Cord Protection During Thoracic and Thoracoabdominal Endovascular Aortic Repair: 5-Year Results of a Preventive Protocol Including Prophylactic Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage in High-Risk Patients.

PURPOSE: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating complication of thoracoabdominal aortic (TAA) repair. The use of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) as part of a protective protocol during endovascular repair is controversial. This article reports the results of the prophylactic use of CSFD as part of the of a prevention protocol implemented in 2016. METHODS: Retrospective review of spinal cord outcomes (SCI rate and CSFD-related complications) in patients treated endovascularly for TAA disease at a single institution from 2016 (implementation of an institutional SCI risk reduction protocol) to 2021. Patients were classified as high risk (≥2 factors), intermediate risk (1 factor), or low risk (0 factor). Only high-risk patients without contraindications underwent a prophylactic CSFD placement. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one patients were analyzed (124 males; 69.6 years): 130 (69%) aneurysms (n=24 thoracic, n=28 Crawford 1-2-3, and n=78 Crawford 4/pararenal), 35 (19.9%) chronic aneurysmal dissections, and 16 (8.8%) acute complicated type B dissections. Interventions were staged in 31 (17.2%) cases, and consisted of 74 (41%) Thoracic EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (TEVAR) and 107 (59%) Fenestrated Branched EndoVascular Aneurysm Repair (F-BEVAR). Sixty-nine (38.1%) patients were identified as being at high risk of SCI and CSFD was used prophylactically in 64 of them (4 failures and 1 contraindication). Spinal cord injury occurred in 8 cases (4 paraparesis, 4 paraplegias including 2 permanent), of which 3 had a prophylactic CSFD and 5 underwent rescue drainage. In addition, 4 patients developed SCI related to prophylactic CSFD (intradural hematoma), resulting in 1 paraparesis and 3 paraplegias. Other CSFD-related complications were mild (6) or moderate (2), for a total of 12 complications (17%). Factors associated with major drain complications were: curative anticoagulation 36 hours after drain removal (n=1), multiple punctures (n=1), platelet count <100 000 at drain removal (n=1), and bipolar disorder (n=2). Overall, 4 patients had permanent paraplegia and 1 had sphincter dysfunction at the last follow-up. Mean follow-up was 17 months. Mortality was 4.4% at 30 days and 13.3% at 18 months, including 3 (1.6%) aortic-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: With the protocol we used to protect the spinal cord, we report results comparable with the SCI literature and highlight the risks associated with prophylactic CSFD use, which requires a better understanding of contraindications.

Risk Factors for Spinal Cord Injury during Endovascular Repair of Thoracoabdominal Aneurysm: Review of the Literature and Proposal of a Prognostic Score.

Despite recent improvements, spinal cord ischemia remains the most feared and dramatic complication following extensive aortic repair. Although endovascular procedures are associated with a lower risk compared with open procedures, this risk is still significant and must be considered. A combined medical and surgical approach may help to optimize the tolerance of the spinal cord to ischemia. The aim of this review is to describe the underlying mechanism involved in spinal cord injury during extensive endovascular aortic repair, to describe the different techniques used to improve spinal cord tolerance to ischemia-including the prophylactic or curative use of spinal drainage-and to propose our algorithm for spinal cord protection and the rational use of spinal drainage.

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.

Intracranial Hypertension with Patent Basal Cisterns: Controlled Lumbar Drainage as a Therapeutic Option. Selected Case Series.

BACKGROUND: There are pathological conditions in which intracranial hypertension and patent basal cisterns in computed tomography coexist. These situations are not well recognized, which could lead to diagnostic errors and improper management. METHODS: We present a retrospective case series of patients with traumatic brain injury, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and cryptococcal meningitis who were treated at our intensive care unit. Criteria for deciding placement of an external lumbar drain were (1) intracranial hypertension refractory to osmotherapy, hyperventilation, neuromuscular blockade, intravenous anesthesia, and, in some cases, decompressive craniectomy and (2) a computed tomography scan that showed open basal cisterns and no mass lesion. RESULTS: Eleven patients were studied. Six of the eleven patients treated with controlled lumbar drainage are discussed as illustrative cases. All patients developed intracranial hypertension refractory to maximum medical treatment, including decompressive craniectomy in Four of the eleven cases. Controlled external lumbar drainage led to immediate and sustained control of elevated intracranial pressure in all patients, with good neurological outcomes. No brain herniation, intracranial bleeding, or meningitis was detected during this procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides preliminary evidence that in selected patients who develop refractory intracranial hypertension with patent basal cisterns and no focal mass effect on computed tomography, controlled lumbar drainage appears to be a therapeutic option. In our study there were no deaths or complications. Prospective and larger studies are needed to confirm our results.

The impact of postoperative cerebrospinal fluid drainage on neurological improvement following thoracic aortic and thoracoabdominal aortic surgery.

Background: Various preventive measures and treatment methods exist to prevent paraplegia during thoracic aortic surgery. Postoperative cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) is one of the treatment options when paraplegia occurs. This study aimed to evaluate the neurological efficacy of postoperative CSFD in patients undergoing thoracic aortic and thoracoabdominal aortic surgery. Methods: We analyzed perioperative data from 85 patients who underwent perioperative CSFD for thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic surgery between January 2006 and December 2022, focusing on neurological changes. A total of 61 patients (72%) received preoperative CSFD, and 24 patients (28%) received postoperative CSFD. Perioperative neurological data were analyzed with a focus on perioperative changes. Results: In the postoperative CSFD group, the manual muscle test (MMT) score before CSFD was 0.8, that just after CSFD was 2.4, and that at discharge was 3.0. Therefore, postoperative CSFD improved MMT scores compared with preoperative CSFD. The mean time between surgery completion and postoperative CSFD implantation was 9.8 hours. However, 6 (25%) of the patients who developed postoperative paraplegia and underwent early postoperative CSFD remained paraplegic without any improvement. In the preoperative CSFD group, there was only one case (2%) of postoperative paraplegia. Conclusions: Postoperative CSFD improved the neurological prognosis of individuals undergoing thoracic aortic and thoracoabdominal aortic surgery. However, 25% of the patients remained paraplegic despite postoperative CSFD.

Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage and spinal cord ischemia in thoracic and thoracoabdominal endovascular procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is one of the most devastating complications of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) has been shown to decrease the risk of SCI in open thoracic aortic procedures; however, its utility in TEVAR remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to determine the role of prophylactic CSFD in preventing SCI in TEVAR. Methods: A literature search of five databases was performed and all studies published before September 2022 that reported SCI rates in TEVAR patients undergoing prophylactic CSFD were included. A random effects meta-analysis of means or proportions was performed for single-arm data. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported for comparisons between groups. Results: A total of 4,793 patients undergoing TEVAR from 40 studies were included. The mean age was 68.8 years and 70.9% of patients were male. The overall SCI rate was 3.5%, with a 1.3% rate of immediate SCI and a 1.9% rate of delayed SCI. There were no significant differences in SCI rates between prophylactic CSFD patients and non-drained patients. Routine CSFD did not have a significant impact on SCI rates compared to non-drained patients. There was an increased rate of transient SCI with selective CSFD compared to non-drained patients (OR 2.08; 95% CI: 1.06-4.08; P=0.03). The most common drain-related complication was spinal headache (4.3%). The major complication rate was 1.6%, of which epidural or spinal hematoma (0.9%) was the most common, followed by intracranial or subdural hemorrhage (0.8%) and paraparesis or paraplegia (0.8%). Conclusions: This study found no significant difference in SCI rates between prophylactic CSFD patients and their non-drained counterparts. CSFD is associated with a small but non-negligible risk of serious complications. Multi-center randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to help stratify the risk of both SCI and CSFD-related complications in patients undergoing endovascular aortic procedures.

Comparison of Landmark-Guided Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Cerebrospinal Fluid Drain-Related Complications After Aortic Repairs.

OBJECTIVE: Cerebrospinal fluid drains (CSFDs) are efficacious in preventing spinal cord injury after thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic repair with extensive coverage. Increasingly, fluoroscopy is used to guide placement instead of the traditional landmark-based approach, but it is unknown which approach is associated with fewer complications. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: In the operating room. PARTICIPANTS: Patients having undergone thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic repair with a CSFD over a 7-year period at a single center. INTERVENTIONS: No intervention. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Groups were reviewed and statistically compared with respect to baseline characteristics, ease of CSFD placement, and major and minor complications directly related to placement. A total of 150 CSFDs were placed with landmark guidance as opposed to 95 with fluoroscopy guidance. Compared to the landmark group, patients with fluoroscopy-guided CSFDs were older (p < 0.008), had lower American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scores (p = 0.008), required fewer CSFD placement attempts (p = 0.011), had the CSFD in place for longer duration (p < 0.001), and had a similar incidence of CSFD-related complications (p > 0.999). Composites of both major (4.5% of cases) and minor CSFD-related complications (6.1% of cases), the primary outcomes of the study, occurred with similar incidences between the 2 groups (p > 0.999 for both comparisons) after adjusting potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing thoracic or thoracoabdominal aortic repairs, there were no significant differences in the risk of major and minor CSFD-related complications between fluoroscopic guidance and the landmark approach. Although the authors' institution is a high-volume center for this type of procedure, the study was limited by a small sample size. Hence, regardless of the technique used for the placement of CSFD, the risks related to the placement should be balanced carefully against the potential benefits resulting from spinal cord injury prevention. Fluoroscopy-aided insertion of CSFD requires fewer attempts and, hence, may be better tolerated by patients.

Spinal cord ischemia rates and prophylactic spinal drainage in patients treated with fenestrated/branched endovascular repair for thoracoabdominal aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a devastating complication after thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair. The benefit of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (pCSFD) to prevent SCI is still under investigation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the SCI rate and the impact of pCSFD following complex endovascular repair (fenestrated or branched endovascular repair [F/BEVAR]) for type I to IV TAAA. METHODS: The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was followed. A single-center retrospective study was conducted, including all consecutive patients, managed for TAAA type I to IV using F/BEVAR, between January 1, 2018, and November 1, 2022, for degenerative and post-dissection aneurysms. Patients with juxta- or pararenal aneurysms were excluded, as well as cases managed urgently for aortic rupture or acute dissection. After 2020, pCSFD in type I to III TAAAs was abandoned and replaced by therapeutic CSFD (tCSFD), performed only in patients presenting SCI. The primary outcome was the perioperative SCI rate for the entire cohort and the role of pCSFD for type I to III TAAAs. RESULTS: In total, 198 patients were included (mean age, 71.1±3.4 years; 81.8% males), including 50.5% with type I to III TAAA. The primary technical success was 94.9%. The perioperative mortality was 2.5%. and the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate was 10.6%; 4.5% presented SCI of any type (2.5% paraplegia). When comparing the SCI group with the remaining cohort, patients with SCI presented higher MACE (66.7% vs 7.9%; P < .001) rate and longer intensive care unit stay (3.5 vs 1 day; P = .002). Following type I to III repair, similar SCI, paraplegia, and paraplegia with no recovery rates were reported in the pCSFD and tCSFD groups (7.3% vs 5.1%; P = .66; 4.8% vs 3.3%; P = .72; and 2% vs 0%; P = .37). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of SCI after TAAA I to IV endovascular repair was low. SCI was associated with significantly increased MACE and intensive care unit stay. The prophylactic use of CSFD in type I to III TAAAs was not associated with lower SCI rates and may not be justified routinely.

Drainage or lavage as a salvage manoeuvre after intrathecal drug errors: A systematic review with therapeutic recommendations.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage and lavage are reported to reduce drug exposure after inadvertant intrathecal drug administration errors. This reviews aims to provide recommendations for this salvage technique, with regard to methodology, effectiveness and adverse events. DESIGN: Systematic review. A search in the databases of Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Randomized Trials and Google Scholar was performed in 2022. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All reports of individual patient data with CSF drainage or lavage with a percutaneous lumbar access for an intrathecal drug error were included. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome is the description and count of CSF drainage or lavage, such as times and volume of drainage, volume of replacement and type of replacement fluid. Secondary outcomes are the effects, adverse events and overall outcome. MAIN RESULTS: 58 cases were found, of which 24 were paediatric cases. There was a large variance in methodology, with regard to volume t and type of replacement fluid. In 45% of the cases the intrathecal drug removal continued. The effects were specifically reported in 27 cases, all demonstrated drug removal based on drug concentrations in the CSF (n = 20) and clinical signs (n = 7). Adverse effects were sought for in 17 cases and found intracranial haemorrhage in 3 cases. No interventions were required for these adverse events and the only reported long-term sequelae in these three patients was short-term memory impairment up to 6 months after the event (n = 1). The overall outcome depended largely on the causative agent. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that CSF drainage or lavage leads to intrathecal drug removal, but it is unsure if this intervention leads to improved overall patient outcome. Based on aggregated data from case reports, we provide recommendations that may guide clinicians. The risk-benefit ratio should be weighed on a case-to-case basis.

Systematic Review of the Effect of Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage on Outcomes After Endovascular Descending Thoracic/Thoraco-Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether prophylactic use of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage in endovascular descending thoracic aortic aneurysm (DTAA) and thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair contributes to a lower rate of post-operative spinal cord ischaemia (SCI). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. REVIEW METHODS: A literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42021245893). Risk of bias was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS), and the certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach. A proportion meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the pooled rate and 95% confidence interval (CI) of both early and late onset SCI. Pooled outcome estimates were calculated using the odds ratio (OR) and associated 95% CI. The primary outcome was SCI, both early and lateonset. Secondary outcomes were complications of CSF drainage, length of hospital stay, and peri-operative (30 day or in hospital) mortality rates. RESULTS: Twenty-eight observational, retrospective studies were included, reporting 4 814 patients (2 599 patients with and 2 215 without CSF drainage). The NOS showed a moderate risk of bias. The incidence of SCI was similar in patients with CSF drainage (0.05, 95% CI 0.03 ‒ 0.08) and without CSF drainage (0.05, 95% CI 0.00 ‒ 0.14). No significant decrease in SCI was found when using CSF drainage (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 ‒ 1.55, p = .35). The incidence rate of CSF drainage related complication was 0.10 (95% CI 0.04 ‒ 0.19). The 30 day and in hospital mortality rate with CSF drainage was 0.08 (95% CI 0.05 ‒ 0.12). The 30 day and in hospital mortality rate without CSF drainage and comparison with late mortality and length of hospital stay could not be determined due to lack of data. The quality of evidence was considered very low. CONCLUSION: Pre-operative CSF drainage placement was not related to a favourable outcome regarding SCI rate in endovascular TAAA and DTAA repair. Due to the low quality of evidence, no clear recommendation on pre-operative use of CSF drainage placement can be made.