Department of Anesthesiology

You are here

Cerebrospinal-fluid drain-related complications in patients undergoing open and endovascular repairs of thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aortic pathologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

TitleCerebrospinal-fluid drain-related complications in patients undergoing open and endovascular repairs of thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aortic pathologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2018
AuthorsRong LQ, Kamel MK, Rahouma M, White RS, Lichtman AD, Pryor KO, Girardi LN, Gaudino M
JournalBr J Anaesth
Volume120
Issue5
Pagination904-913
Date Published2018 May
ISSN1471-6771
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cerebrospinal-fluid (CSF) drainage is recommended by current guidelines for spinal protection during open and endovascular repairs of thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysms. In the published literature, great variability exists in the rate of CSF-related complications and morbidity. Herein, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the incidence of CSF drainage-related complications, and compare the complication rates between open and endovascular repairs.

METHODS: The systematic review was conducted according to the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Thirty-four studies (4714 patients) were included in the quantitative analysis. The CSF drainage-related complications were categorised as mild, moderate, and severe. Pooled event rates for each complication category were estimated using a random-effect model. Random-effect uni- and multivariable meta-regression analyses were used to assess the effect of aortic-repair approach (open vs endovascular) and the CSF drainage criteria on CSF drainage-related complications.

RESULTS: The pooled event rates were 6.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.3-9.8%] for overall complications, 2% (95% CI: 1.1-3.4%) for minor complications, 3.7% (95% CI: 2.5-5.6%) for moderate complications, and 2.5% (95% CI: 1.6-3.8%) for severe complications. The drainage-related-mortality pooled event rate was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.6-1.4%). The uni- and multivariable meta-regression analyses showed no difference in complication rates between the open and endovascular approaches, or between the different CSF drainage protocols.

CONCLUSION: The complication rate for CSF drainage is not negligible. Our results help define a more accurate risk-benefit ratio for CSF drain placement at the time of repair of thoracic and thoraco-abdominal aneurysms.

DOI10.1016/j.bja.2017.12.045
Alternate JournalBr J Anaesth
PubMed ID29661408