“Awake” Spinal Cord Monitoring Under Local Anesthesia and Conscious Sedation in Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aortic Repair

2021 ◽  
pp. 152660282110282
Author(s):  
Said Abisi ◽  
Liam Musto ◽  
Oliver Lyons ◽  
Michelle Carmichael ◽  
Morad Sallam ◽  
...  

Introduction Endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms carries a risk of spinal cord ischemia, the causes of which remain uncertain. We hypothesized that local anesthesia (LA) with conscious sedation could abrogate the potential suppressive cardiovascular effects of general anesthesia (GA) and facilitate intraoperative monitoring of neurological function. Here, we examine the feasibility of this technique during fenestrated (FEVAR) or branched endovascular aortic repair (BEVAR). Materials and Methods Consecutive patients undergoing FEVAR or BEVAR under LA and conscious sedation by a team at a single center were analyzed. Patients received conscious sedation using intravenous remifentanil and propofol infusions in conjunction with a local anesthetic agent. No patient had a prophylactic spinal drain inserted. Outcome measures included conversion to GA, need for vasopressors and/or spinal drainage, length of stay, complications, and patient survival. Results A total of 44 patients underwent FEVAR or BEVAR under LA and conscious sedation. The cohort included thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (n=41) and pararenal aneurysms treated with endografts covering the supraceliac segment (n=3). Four patients (9%) required conversion to GA at a median operative duration of 198 minutes (range 97–495 minutes). Vasopressors were required intraoperatively in 3 of the cases that were converted to GA. No patient developed spinal cord ischemia and none had insertion of a spinal drain. The median hospital length of stay was 4 days (range 2–41 days). Postoperative delirium and hospital-acquired pneumonia was seen in 7% of patients. All patients survived to 30 days, with 95% alive at a median follow-up of 15 months (range 3–26 months). Conclusion LA and conscious sedation is a feasible anesthetic technique for the endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 393-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandro Suarez-Pierre ◽  
Xun Zhou ◽  
Jose E. Gonzalez ◽  
Muhammad Rizwan ◽  
Charles D. Fraser ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 801-804
Author(s):  
Catharina Gronert ◽  
Nikolaos Tsilimparis ◽  
Giuseppe Panuccio ◽  
Ahmed Eleshra ◽  
Fiona Rohlffs ◽  
...  

Purpose: To report a case of chronic intermittent spinal cord ischemia (SCI) after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and its successful treatment using hypogastric artery stenting. Case Report: A 79-year-old patient presented in May 2013 with a thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) and a contained rupture. He urgently underwent TEVAR that covered 274 mm of descending thoracic aorta without immediate postoperative signs of acute SCI. At 3-month follow-up, he reported repeating incidents of sudden lower extremity weakness leading to a fall with a humerus fracture. A neurological consultation revealed the tentative diagnosis of intermittent SCI caused by TEVAR and initially recommended a conservative approach. During the following year there was no clinical improvement of the symptoms. Computed tomography angiography showed a high-grade stenosis of the right hypogastric artery, which was stented in November 2014 to improve the collateral network of spinal cord perfusion. Following treatment, the patient had no further neurological symptoms; at 32 months after the reintervention, the imaging follow-up documented a patent stent and continued exclusion of the TAA. Conclusion: Intermittent neurological symptoms after TEVAR should be suspected as chronic intermittent SCI. The improvement of collateral networks of the spinal cord by revascularization of the hypogastric artery is a viable treatment option.


2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. e15-e16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvatore T. Scali ◽  
Kristina A. Giles ◽  
Grace J. Wang ◽  
Thomas S. Huber ◽  
Gilbert R. Upchurch ◽  
...  

Vascular ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 339-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan T Orr ◽  
Daniel L Davenport ◽  
David J Minion ◽  
Eleftherios S Xenos

Objective Endoluminal aortic aneurysm repair is suitable within certain anatomic specifications. This study aims to compare 30-day outcomes of endovascular versus open repairs for juxtarenal and pararenal aortic aneurysms (JAA/PAAs). Methods The ACS-NSQIP database was queried from 2012 to 2015 for JAA/PAA repairs. Procedures characterized as emergent were included in the study; however, failed prior repairs and ruptured aneurysms were excluded. The preoperative and perioperative patient characteristics, operative techniques, and outcome variables were compared between the open aortic repair and the endovascular aortic repair groups. Propensity scoring was performed to clinically match open aortic repair and endovascular aortic repair groups on preoperative risk and select perioperative factors that differed significantly in the unmatched groups. Outcome comparisons were then performed between matched groups. Results A total of 1005 (789 JAAs and 216 PAAs) aneurysm repairs were included in the study. Of these, there were 395 endovascular aortic repairs and 610 open aortic repairs. Propensity scoring created a matched group of 263 endovascular aortic repair and 263 open aortic repair patients. There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality rates between matched endovascular aortic repair and open aortic repair patients (2.7% vs. 5.7%). The endovascular aortic repair group had a shorter ICU length of stay and overall hospital stay. The 30-day morbidity significantly favored endovascular aortic repair over open aortic repair (16% vs. 35%, p < 0.001). The main drivers of morbidity for endovascular aortic repair versus open aortic repair included return to the OR (6.8% vs. 15%, p < 0.001), rate of cardiac or respiratory failure (7.6% vs. 21%, p = 0.001), rate of renal insufficiency or failure (3.8% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.009), and rate of pneumonia (1.5% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.004). Conclusions There is no difference in mortality rates between endovascular aortic repair versus open aortic repair when repairing JAAs/PAAs. There is a significant difference in overall morbidity, and ICU and hospital length of stay favoring endovascular aortic repair over open aortic repair. This supports the expanded applicability and efficacy of endovascular repair for complex aneurysms.


2016 ◽  
Vol 63 (6) ◽  
pp. 174S-175S
Author(s):  
Liza Flory P. Laquian ◽  
Salvatore Scali ◽  
Robert Feezor ◽  
Javairiah Fatima ◽  
Kristina A. Giles ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document