Trauma bypass performed by vascular surgeons demonstrate excellent long-term outcomes and limb preservation.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term outcomes in civilian trauma patients requiring upper or lower extremity revascularization is poorly studied secondary to limitations of certain large databases and the nature of the patients in this specific vascular subset. This study reports on the experience and outcomes of a Level 1 trauma center that serves both an urban and a large rural population over a 20-year period to identify bypass outcomes and surveillance protocols. METHODS: Database of a single vascular group at an academic center was queried for trauma patients requiring upper or lower extremity revascularization between January 1, 2002, and June 30, 2022. Patient demographics, indications, operative details, operative mortality, 30-day nonoperative morbidity, revisions, subsequent major amputations, and follow-up data were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 223 revascularizations were performed, 161 (72%) lower and 62 (28%) upper extremities. One hundred sixty-seven patients (74.9%) were male, with a mean age of 39 years (range, 3-89 years). Comorbidities included hypertension (n = 34; 15.3%), diabetes (n = 6; 2.7%), and tobacco use (n = 40; 17.9%). Mean follow-up time was 23 months (range, 1-234 months), with 90 patients (40.4%) lost to follow-up. Mechanisms included blunt trauma (n = 106; 47.5%), penetrating trauma (n = 83; 37.2%), and operative trauma (n = 34; 15.3%). Bypass conduit was reversed vein (n= 171; 76.7%), prosthetic (n = 34; 15.2%), and orthograde vein (n = 11; 4.9%). Bypass inflow artery was superficial femoral (n = 66; 41.0%), above-knee popliteal (n = 28; 17.4%), and common femoral (n = 20; 12.4%) in the lower extremity, and brachial (n = 41; 66.1%), axillary (n = 10; 16.1%), and radial (n = 6; 9.7%) in the upper extremity. Lower extremity outflow artery was posterior tibial (n = 47; 29.2%), below-knee popliteal (n = 41; 25.5%), superficial femoral (n = 16; 9.9%), dorsalis pedis (n = 10; 6.2%), common femoral (n = 9; 5.6%), and above-knee popliteal (n = 10; 6.2%). Upper extremity outflow artery was brachial (n = 34; 54.8%), radial (n = 13; 21.0%), and ulnar (n = 13; 21.0%). Total operative mortality was nine patients (4.0%), all involving lower extremity revascularization. Thirty-day non-fatal complications included immediate bypass occlusion (n = 11; 4.9%), wound infection (n = 8; 3.6%), graft infection (n = 4; 1.8%), and lymphocele/seroma (n = 7; 3.1%). All major amputations (n = 13; 5.8%) were early and in the lower extremity bypass group. Late revisions in the lower and upper extremity groups were 14 (8.7%) and four (6.4%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Revascularization for extremity trauma can be performed with excellent limb salvage rates and has demonstrated long-term durability with low limb loss and bypass revision rates. The poor compliance with long-term surveillance is concerning and may require adjustment in patient retention protocols; however, emergent returns for bypass failure are extremely low in our experience.

Use of the right retroperitoneum as an alternative approach to the abdominal aorta.

OBJECTIVE: The left retroperitoneal approach to the aorta is a well-established technique for aortic exposure. The right retroperitoneal approach to the aorta is performed less commonly, and the outcomes remain unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of right retroperitoneal aortic-based procedures and to determine its utility in aortic reconstruction when faced with hostile anatomy or infection in the abdomen or left flank. METHODS: A retrospective query of a vascular surgery database from a tertiary referral center was performed for all retroperitoneal aortic procedures. Individual patient charts were reviewed, and data were collected. Demographics, indications, intraoperative details, and outcomes were tabulated. RESULTS: From 1984 through 2020, there have been 7454 open aortic procedures; 6076 were retroperitoneal-based, and 219 of which were performed from the right retroperitoneal approach (Rrp). Aneurysmal disease was the most common indication (48.9%), and graft occlusion was the most common postoperative complication (11.4%). The average aneurysm size was 5.5 cm, and the most common reconstruction was with a bifurcated graft (77.6%). Average intraoperative blood loss was 923.8 mL (range, 50-6800 mL; median, 600 mL). Perioperative complications occurred in 56 patients (25.6%) for a total of 70 complications. Perioperative mortality occurred in two patients (0.91%). The 219 patients treated with Rrp required 66 subsequent procedures in 31 patients. These included 29 extra-anatomic bypasses, 19 thrombectomies/embolectomies, 10 bypass revisions, 5 infected graft excisions, and 3 aneurysm revisions. Eight Rrp eventually underwent a left retroperitoneal approach for aortic reconstruction. Fourteen patients with a left-sided aortic procedure required a Rrp. CONCLUSIONS: The right retroperitoneal approach to the aorta is a useful technique in the setting of prior surgery, anatomic abnormality, or infection that complicates the use of other more frequently employed approaches. This review demonstrates comparable outcomes and the technical feasibility of this approach. The right retroperitoneal approach to aortic surgery should be considered a viable alternative to left retroperitoneal and transperitoneal access in patients with complex anatomy or prohibitive pathology for more traditional exposure.

Interim outcomes of mechanical thrombectomy for deep vein thrombosis from the All-Comer CLOUT Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The multicenter, prospective, single arm CLOUT registry assesses the safety and effectiveness of the ClotTriever System (Inari Medical, Irvine, CA) for the treatment of acute and nonacute lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in all-comer patients. Reported here are the outcomes of the first 250 patients. METHODS: All-comer patients with lower extremity DVT were enrolled, including those with bilateral DVT, those with previously failed DVT treatment, and regardless of symptom duration. The primary effectiveness end point is complete or near-complete (≥75%) thrombus removal determined by independent core laboratory-adjudicated Marder scores. Safety outcomes include serious adverse events through 30 days and clinical outcomes include post-thrombotic syndrome severity, symptoms, pain, and quality of life through 6 months. RESULTS: The median age was 62 years and 40% of patients had contraindications to thrombolytics. A range of thrombus chronicity (33% acute, 35% subacute, 32% chronic) was observed. No patients received thrombolytics and 99.6% were treated in a single session. The median thrombectomy time was 28 minutes. The primary effectiveness end point was achieved in 86% of limbs. Through 30 days, one device-related serious adverse event occurred. At 6 months, 24% of patients had post-thrombotic syndrome. Significant and sustained improvements were observed in all clinical outcomes, including the Revised Venous Clinical Severity Score, the numeric pain rating scale, and the EuroQol Group 5-Dimension Self-Report Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The 6-month outcomes from the all-comer CLOUT registry with a range of thrombus chronicities demonstrate favorable effectiveness, safety, and sustained clinical improvements.

Prosthetic versus native artery inflow for infrainguinal bypass.

BACKGROUND: Infrainguinal bypass performed after previous prosthetic inflow reconstruction offers a choice of where to perform the proximal anastomosis. The hood of a previous inflow bypass might be technically easier to isolate during reoperative surgery. However, the more distal native artery might offer better patency to the outflow revascularization. The purpose of the present study was to compare the outcomes of infrainguinal bypass using the hood of a previous inflow bypass vs the native artery as the inflow source. METHODS: A single vascular group's database was queried for all cases of infrainguinal bypass performed after previous prosthetic inflow bypass to a femoral artery from January 2006 to December 2016. The demographics, indications, operative details, and long-term results were recorded and analyzed. Two groups were compared stratified by the location of the proximal anastomosis for the distal bypass. In one group, the inflow source for the distal bypass was from the hood of a previous inflow graft (prosthetic). In the second group, the distal native arterial tree was used as the inflow source. A subset analysis of the patency of the distal bypass was also performed between the two groups for those in which the previous inflow reconstruction had become occluded. Patency was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients had undergone infrainguinal bypass after previous inflow bypass from 2006 to 2016. Of the 197 procedures, 59 (30%) had used the hood of the previous bypass as the inflow source (prosthetic group) and 138 (70%) had used the native artery distal to the hood of the inflow bypass as the inflow source (native group). The indications were similar between the two groups. The two groups had a similar proportion of men and a similar incidence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease, tobacco use, and renal disease. The previous inflow procedures were also similar between the two groups. The native artery used for the inflow source in the native group was the profunda femoris in 80 (58%), common femoral artery in 51 (37%), and superficial femoral artery in 7 (5.1%). Patency was significantly greater for the native group at 1 year (91% vs 75%; P = .0221). Also, the patency after inflow bypass occlusion significantly favored the native group at 1 year (87% vs 40%; P = .0035). CONCLUSIONS: Infrainguinal bypass performed after previous ipsilateral inflow bypass offers the option of using the hood of the bypass or a native artery as the inflow source. The present study demonstrated greater patency rates when using the distal native artery as the inflow source. The native artery option also offered continued patency when the inflow bypass occluded.

Chimney stent graft for left subclavian artery preservation during thoracic endograft placement.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid to subclavian artery bypass (CSB) has been the standard for revascularizing the left subclavian artery during coverage by thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). The purpose of this study is to determine if a chimney stent graft (CSG) offers similar outcomes as an alternative to open bypass. METHODS: A retrospective review of a single vascular surgery registry between February 2011 and September 2017 was performed of all left subclavian revascularization during elective TEVAR. Arch reconstructions involving more than just the left subclavian artery were excluded. Indications, demographics, procedural details, and outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients with a mean age of 68 years (range, 32-87 years) had left subclavian revascularization (64 [79%] CSB vs 17 [21%] CSG) during TEVAR. Median follow-up for CSG was 8 months (range, 0-52 months) and for CSB was 14.5 months (range, 3-72). Demographics between the groups were similar except for more males in both groups (43 [67%] in CSB vs 10 [59%] in CSG; P = .28). The CSB group had significantly more aneurysms than dissections compared with CSG (45 [70%] vs 6 [35%]; P = .008). There were no perioperative occlusions or ischemic issues for either group in the perioperative period. Postoperative hematoma rates trended higher in the CSB (7.11% vs 1.6%; P = .53) with three (4.6%) of the CSB requiring evacuation of hematoma. Left hemispheric strokes were 6% in the CSB with none occurring in the CSG group. Perioperatively, the CSB group had one recurrent laryngeal nerve and one graft infection. Length of stay was similar in both groups (CSB, 8.4 days vs CSG, 9.1 days). Perioperative mortality was not statistically significant between both groups with two deaths (3%) in the CSB and none in the CSG group. No gutter leaks were identified on follow-up computed tomography scan during long-term follow-up. Patency rates were similar with only one occlusion in the CSB group at 23 months. CONCLUSIONS: Left common carotid to subclavian artery bypass has been the standard for revascularization of the left subclavian artery during coverage by TEVAR. Chimney stent grafting to perfuse the left arm appears to offer equivalent results as a minimally invasive alternative.

Outcomes for carotid endarterectomy in nonagenarians.

OBJECTIVE: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a well-established procedure with prospective randomized data demonstrating the benefit of stroke prevention. With the aging of the population, there are limited data published for nonagenarians, especially for asymptomatic stenosis. This study investigated 30-day morbidity and mortality as well as late survival in symptomatic and asymptomatic nonagenarians with severe carotid stenosis undergoing CEA. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of a single vascular surgery group's registry involving multiple hospitals between November 1994 and June 2017 for all primary CEAs of patients ≥90 years old at the time of surgery. The exclusion criterion was redo surgery or bilateral CEAs. Demographic data, sex, symptoms, risk factors, and postoperative complications were analyzed. Survival analysis was conducted using SPSS software (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) for the specific end point 30-day morbidity or mortality and late survival. RESULTS: There were 77 patients (44 male [57%]) who underwent CEA for symptomatic (44 [57%]) and asymptomatic (33 [43%]) internal carotid artery stenosis with a median age of 92 years; 23 women were symptomatic compared with 21 men, and 23 men were asymptomatic compared with 10 women. Symptomatic patients included amaurosis fugax (n = 3), stroke (n = 16), and transient ischemic attack (n = 25). CEAs were performed using the eversion technique under cervical block with selective shunting. The 30-day morbidity included one (2.3%) nonfatal myocardial infarction and one (2.3%) ischemic stroke in the symptomatic group compared with one (3%) patient having a nonfatal myocardial infarction and none with ischemic stroke in the asymptomatic group. One patient of the symptomatic group required return to the operating room for hematoma evacuation. The 30-day mortality was 2.3% in the symptomatic group compared with 6.1% in the asymptomatic group. There was no statistical difference in survival based on sex (P = .444). The symptomatic and asymptomatic groups had similar median survival of 27.7 months and 29.4 months (P = .987), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The aging population adds increasing difficulty in decision-making for surgical intervention on carotid stenosis. CEA in nonagenarians is associated with reasonably low 30-day rates of ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction in our small study. However, enthusiasm for asymptomatic CEA in this population must be tempered by low survival rates.

Effects of endovascular first strategy on spliced vein bypass outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Aggressive endovascular interventions for patients without adequate full-length venous conduit have gained popularity. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of spliced vein bypass (SVB) as primary treatment versus treatment after failed endovascular intervention (endovascular SVB [ESVB]) for infrainguinal revascularization. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a single vascular group's database of all SVBs was queried for demographics, indications, intraoperative details, and outcomes. Exclusion criteria included acute ischemia, aneurysm, dual outflow, bypass revisions, and patients lost to immediate follow-up. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five infrainguinal SVBs were performed between January 2011 and March 2017. There were 182 SVB (77%) and 53 ESVB (23%) with a mean follow-up of 488 days (range, 1-2140). Demographics between the SVB and ESVB groups were similar in all categories recorded: diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, current smoker, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hyperlipidemia, and renal disease (P = .29). Indications for bypass were not statistically significant between SVB and ESVB (P = .48). The study included Rutherford class 3 (14 vs 2), class 4 (51 vs 20), class 5 (67 vs 18), and class 6 (50 vs 13). Inflow was grouped into iliac (2.6%), femoral (88%), and popliteal (9.8%). Outflow arteries were grouped into below knee popliteal (14.9%) and infrapopliteal (85.1%). Inflow and outflow arteries, as well as number of spliced pieces per bypass were not different between groups. Major amputation rates were not different between SVB and ESVB for the entire study period. There was no statistical difference with patency outcomes based on Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (P = .84). CONCLUSIONS: An aggressive endovascular first strategy for treatment of patients without adequate autogenous conduit seems to offer benefit without negatively affecting future bypass options. SVB patency and major amputation rates in this series were not affected by a prior endovascular treatment.

Long-term patency of venous and prosthetic conduits for ipsilateral internal carotid artery bypass.

OBJECTIVE: Ipsilateral internal carotid artery bypass has been used successfully to treat aneurysms, infection, tumor, and occlusive disease. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of autogenous and prosthetic conduits used for ipsilateral internal carotid artery bypass. METHODS: A retrospective review of a single-institution registry was performed to identify patients with ipsilateral carotid artery bypass. Demographics, complications, and patency were recorded and compared using χ2, Fisher's exact, and log-rank analysis. RESULTS: From 1994 to 2016, 105 patients underwent ipsilateral carotid artery bypass (86 prosthetic, 19 veins). The venous bypass group and prosthetic bypass group were different in terms of gender (8 males and 11 females vs 58 males and 28 females; P = .038), but similar in age (mean in the venous bypass group, 63 years [range, 18-80 years] vs mean in the prosthetic bypass group 68 years [range, 33-88 years], P = .052). The mean follow-up was 53 months (range, 1 month to 15 years). Diabetes, pulmonary disease, hypercholesterolemia, and tobacco use were not statistically different between the groups. Indications were different between the groups, with a prosthetic bypass being used more often for occlusive disease and a venous bypass used more often for infection, aneurysm, trauma, and tumor (Fisher's exact test, P = .004). Perioperative complications were few and similar between groups (restenosis, immediate occlusion, and neurologic morbidity). Patency rates, as determined by duplex ultrasound examination, were similar at 1 year (100% venous bypass group vs 99% prosthetic bypass group; P = .434). The 10-year follow-up with an estimated patency based on extrapolated survival curves to be 84% for the venous bypass group vs 88% for the prosthetic bypass group. CONCLUSIONS: Ipsilateral internal carotid artery bypass performed for a variety of indications using prosthetic and venous conduits have demonstrated excellent short-term results. Both types of conduits in this series have trended toward continued durability over long-term follow-up.

Percutaneous axillary artery access for endovascular interventions.

BACKGROUND: As endovascular therapy becomes increasingly complex, adjunct techniques such as upper extremity arterial access facilitate visceral branch interventions. The purpose of this study was to assess the viability of axillary artery percutaneous access in endovascular repair. METHODS: Records of all patients undergoing axillary artery percutaneous access as part of an endovascular intervention from December 2015 to December 2016 were examined. Demographics of the patients (age, sex, medical comorbidities, smoking status, and anticoagulation) were documented. Each case was examined for technical success and perioperative complications, including hematoma, brachial plexus injury, and return to the operating room. Early functional outcomes were assessed using clinic follow-up documentation. RESULTS: During the study interval, 25 axillary artery punctures in a total of 19 patients were performed for endovascular intervention. The mean age was 72 years; most patients were male (68%), and the cohort had a typical vascular comorbidity profile (hypertension in 84%, hyperlipidemia in 90%, diabetes in 21%, coronary artery disease in 58%, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 47%; 90% were active or former smokers). Axillary access was obtained as part of complex endovascular aneurysm repair in 13 patients, mesenteric vessel intervention in 3 patients, and iliac intervention in 3 patients. Sheath size was most frequently 6F (6 punctures) or 7F (15 punctures). Closure devices included Perclose (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, Calif) in 36% and Angio-Seal (Terumo Interventional Systems, Somerset, NJ) in 64%. There were two perioperative deaths and one instance of return to the operating room for hematoma. There was no perioperative stroke, axillary occlusion, or severe brachial plexus injury. One patient had transient ipsilateral postoperative thumb numbness, and one patient had residual bleeding after closure requiring manual pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous axillary artery access is a viable strategy to facilitate complex endovascular interventions. This technique avoids the need for brachial or axillary artery exposure and allows larger sheath sizes because of the caliber of the axillary artery. There were no major neurologic or ischemic complications. This technique is a relatively safe and practical alternative to approaches involving exclusively femoral and brachial access.

Percutaneous common femoral artery interventions using angioplasty, atherectomy, and stenting.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of endovascular interventions for common femoral artery (CFA) occlusive disease. METHODS: Using a prospectively maintained multicenter database, we analyzed outcomes in 167 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous CFA interventions for Rutherford class 3 to class 6 (R3-R6) disease. The standardized treatment approach included primary percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) only, atherectomy + PTA, and provisional stenting. Outcomes included technical failure rate, recurrence, complications, and major or minor amputation rate. Data were analyzed using multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: During a 7-year period, 167 patients with R3 (n = 91 [54.5%]) and R4 to R6 (n = 76 [45.5%]) disease underwent CFA interventions that included PTA only (n = 114 [68.2%]), atherectomy ± PTA (n = 38 [22.8%]), and provisional stenting (n = 15 [9.0%]) for failed atherectomy ± PTA. Procedure-related complications included pseudoaneurysm (n = 1 [0.6%]), thrombosis (n = 1 [0.6%]), distal embolization (n = 1 [0.6%]), and death (R6, n = 1 [0.06%]). CFA restenosis was observed in 34 (20.4%) patents; these underwent further percutaneous (n = 18 [10.8%]) or surgical (n = 17 [10.2%]) revascularization that included CFA endarterectomy ± femoral distal bypass. Major or minor amputations were observed in none of the R3 patients and in only three (3.9%) and five (6.5%) of the R4 to R6 patients, respectively. Compared with the atherectomy + PTA group, patients in the PTA-only group had a significantly lower patency. Furthermore, during long-term mean follow-up of 42.5 months, the CFA provisional stent group had a 100% primary patency, which was significantly better than the primary patency in the CFA nonstent groups combined (77.0%; P = .0424). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this study to date would suggest that percutaneous CFA interventions in select patients are relatively safe and effective. In the long term, CFA stenting has significantly better primary patency than CFA atherectomy and PTA combined. CFA atherectomy + PTA has significantly better primary patency than CFA PTA-only at midterm, especially in patients with claudication. Future randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Carotid interventions (CEA and CAS) in acute stroke patients: which procedure on which patient.

Treatment of carotid bifurcation disease in patients presenting with acute stroke has been a controversial issue over the past four decades. Classically, patients were asked to wait four to six weeks before intervention was entertained in order for the brain to stabilize and the risks of intervention to be minimized. Unfortunately, up to 20% of patients will have a secondary event after their index event and the window of opportunity to save potentially salvageable ischemic tissue will be missed. Early reports had demonstrated poor results with intervention. However, more recently, institutions such as ours have demonstrated excellent results with early intervention in patients who present with stable mild to moderate stroke with an NIH stroke scale less than 15 and preferably less than 10, present with stroke and ipsilateral carotid artery lesion of 50% or greater. Also more recently, we have been aggressively treating patients with larger ulcerative plaques even if the stenosis approaches 50%. In our and others experiences, patients who are treated at institutions that have comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs) where they have a multidisciplinary system that consists of vascular surgeons, neuro interventionalists, stroke neurologists, specifically trained stroke nursing staff and a neuro intensive ICU have had optimal results. Early assessment, diagnosis of stroke with recognition of cause of embolization is mandatory but patient selection is extremely important; finding those patients who will benefit the most from urgent intervention. Most studies have demonstrated the benefit of carotid endarterectomy in these patients. More recent studies have demonstrated acceptable results with carotid stenting, especially in smaller lesions, those less than 1.2 centimeters. Early intervention should be avoided in most patients who are obtunded or with an NIH stroke scale greater than 15 or who do not have any "brain at risk" to salvage. These patients may be better served by being treated medically and the small group of patients that do have some improvement may benefit from interval intervention.

Comparative results of open lower extremity revascularization in nonagenarians.

INTRODUCTION: The average lifespan in the United States continues to lengthen. We have observed a similar trend in our patients, with an increased number of nonagenarians presenting for evaluation of vascular disease. This study evaluated outcomes of lower extremity revascularization in patients aged >or=90 years. METHODS: The vascular registry at Albany Medical College was retrospectively reviewed for all lower extremity bypasses performed between 1996 and 2006. We evaluated patient demographics, indications, procedure, patency rates, and complications. Patients were divided into groups based on age >or=90 years (>or=90 group) and <90 years (<90 group). Variables were evaluated by chi(2) analysis. Outcomes were prepared using life-table methods and compared with log-rank analysis. RESULTS: During the last 10 years, 5443 lower extremity bypasses were performed on patients aged <90 years and 150 on patients aged >or=90 years. The <90 group had significantly more men (61.4% vs 29.3%) and was obviously younger, at 68 years (range 7-89 years) vs 92 years (range, 90-101 years). The <90 group had more comorbidities in terms of diabetes, active tobacco use, and hypercholesterolemia. No significant difference was noted in coronary artery disease or chronic renal insufficiency between the groups. Critical limb ischemia as an indication was significantly higher in the >or=90 group (149 [99%] vs 4472 [82%]; P < .0.5). Strikingly, the primary patency was significantly higher in the >or=90 group at 4 years (77% vs 62%; P < .05). Complication and amputation rates did not differ between the groups. Perioperative (15% vs 3%; P < .05) and 1-year (45% vs 11%; P < .05) mortality rates were significantly higher in the >or=90 group. CONCLUSION: Lower extremity bypass for nonagenarians offers acceptable patency and limb salvage but at a significantly higher mortality rate.

Strategies to improve spinal cord ischemia in endovascular thoracic aortic repair: Outcomes of a prospective cerebrospinal fluid drainage protocol.

PURPOSE: Although endovascular repair of thoracic aortic aneurysm has been shown to reduce the morbidity and mortality rates, spinal cord ischemia remains a persistent problem. We evaluated our experience with spinal cord protective measures using a standardized cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage protocol in patients undergoing endovascular thoracic aortic repair. METHODS: From 2004 to 2006, 121 patients underwent elective (n = 52, 43%) and emergent (n = 69, 57%) endovascular thoracic aortic stent graft placement for thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) (n = 94, 78%), symptomatic penetrating ulceration (n = 11, 9%), pseudoaneurysms (n = 5, 4%) and traumatic aortic transactions (n = 11, 9%). In 2005, routine use of a CSF drainage protocol was established to minimize the risks of spinal cord ischemia. The CSF was actively drained to maintain pressures <15 mm Hg and the mean arterial blood pressures were maintained at >/=90 mm Hg. Data was prospectively collected in our vascular registry for elective and emergent endovascular thoracic aortic repair and the patients were divided into 2 groups (+CSF drainage protocol, -CSF drainage protocol). A chi(2) statistical analysis was performed and significance was assumed for P < .05. RESULTS: Of the 121 patients with thoracic stent graft placement, the mean age was 72 years, 62 (51%) were male, and 56 (46%) underwent preoperative placement of a CSF drain, while 65 (54%) did not. Both groups had similar comorbidities of coronary artery disease (24 [43%] vs 27 [41%]), hypertension (44 [79%] vs 50 [77%]), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (18 [32%] vs 22 [34%]), and chronic renal insufficiency (10 [17%] vs 12 [18%]). None of the patients with CSF drainage developed spinal cord ischemia (SCI), and 5 (8%) of the patients without CSF drainage developed SCI within 24 hours of endovascular repair (P< .05). All patients with clinical symptoms of SCI had CSF drain placement and augmentation of systemic blood pressures to >/=90 mm Hg, and 60% (3 of 5 patients) demonstrated marked clinical improvement. CONCLUSION: Perioperative CSF drainage with augmentation of systemic blood pressures may have a beneficial role in reducing the risk of paraplegia in patients undergoing endovascular thoracic aortic stent graft placement. However, selective CSF drainage may offer the same benefit as mandatory drainage.