Article of interest: Spinal cord protection practices used during endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms by the U.S. Aortic Research Consortium.

Aucoin VJ, Eagleton MJ, Farber MA, et al. Spinal cord protection practices used during endovascular repair of complex aortic aneurysms by the U.S. Aortic Research Consortium. J Vasc Surg. 2021 Jan;73(1):323-330. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.07.107.

Full-text for Emory users.

Results: The most common practices routinely included blood pressure elevation (7 of 8; 87.5%), with most having a mean arterial pressure goal of not less than 90 mm Hg in the perioperative period (5 of 7; 71%), a hemoglobin goal intra- and postoperatively of not less than 10 mg/dL (6 of 8; 75%), and the use of prophylactic spinal drains in high-risk patients (6 of 8; 75%). Significant variation was found among the group for the timing of the resumption of antihypertensive medications, duration of hemoglobin goals after the procedure, and management of spinal drains. Many methods described in reported studies were not routinely used by most of the group, including a perioperative steroid bolus (1 of 8; 12.5%), mannitol (2 of 8; 25%), and naloxone infusion (1 of 8; 12.5%). Rescue maneuvers included placement of a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drain if not already present (8 of 8; 100%), decreasing the target CSF drain pop-off pressure (6 of 8; 75%), increasing the CSF drainage volume (5 of 8; 62.5%), increasing the mean arterial pressure goal (8 of 8; 100%), increasing the hemoglobin goal (8 of 8; 100%), and imaging the spine using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (7 of 8; 87.5).

Conclusions: In general, consistent broad practices were used by most of the consortium; however, the details of specific parameters (ie, spinal drain management, therapy duration, and timing of resumption of antihypertensive medication) varied among the group. The U.S. Aortic Research Consortium group used the results of the survey for discussion and agreed on standardized SCI prevention recommendations in accordance with the group’s collective expert opinion and experience. Variations in current practice were also identified to act as a foundation for future study, the most notable of which was the comparative effectiveness of therapeutic vs prophylactic use of CSF drains in the prevention of SCI.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s