Protective Effect on Spinal Cord Injury of Prophylactic Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage in Extensive Aortic Arch Repair for Type A Aortic Dissection: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

IF 5 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Chenyu Zhou, Bin Hou, Kai Zhang, Shiqi Gao, Fangfang Cao, Yumeng Ji, Enzehua Xie, Jiawei Qiu, Juntao Qiu, Cuntao Yu
{"title":"Protective Effect on Spinal Cord Injury of Prophylactic Cerebrospinal Fluid Drainage in Extensive Aortic Arch Repair for Type A Aortic Dissection: A Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"Chenyu Zhou, Bin Hou, Kai Zhang, Shiqi Gao, Fangfang Cao, Yumeng Ji, Enzehua Xie, Jiawei Qiu, Juntao Qiu, Cuntao Yu","doi":"10.1161/JAHA.124.039427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) is commonly used to manage spinal cord injury (SCI) after aortic surgery. However, there is still limited evidence regarding its effectiveness in patients with type A aortic dissection undergoing total arch replacement plus frozen elephant trunk procedure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 1931 patients were retrospectively enrolled between 2010 and 2023. Patients with high-risk postoperative SCI (N=445) were divided into 2 groups: with or without prophylactic CSFD to evaluate the protective effect of prophylactic CSFD. Patients with postoperative SCI (N=119) were divided into 3 groups, without CSFD, therapeutic CSFD, and prophylactic CSFD, and analyzed to compare the treatment effect of different CSFD strategies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prophylactic CSFD significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative SCI in high-risk patients (26.9% versus 17.7%, <i>P</i>=0.029), further supported by matching weights analysis of propensity score and conditional logistic regression. Analyses of the SCI population revealed less severe SCI symptoms in patients with prophylactic CSFD, as assessed by the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (adjusted <i>P</i><0.05). Multivariable ordinal logistic regression showed that compared with those without CSFD, prophylactic CSFD (<i>P</i>=0.003) but not therapeutic CSFD (<i>P</i>=0.981) was beneficial to the in-hospital recovery of postoperative SCI. Long-term SCI outcomes did not differ among groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A prominent protective effect on SCI occurrence and recovery after the total arch replacement plus the frozen elephant trunk procedure was observed with prophylactic CSFD use in patients with type A aortic dissection. However, the effectiveness of therapeutic CSFD fell short of significance.</p>","PeriodicalId":54370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Heart Association","volume":" ","pages":"e039427"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.124.039427","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) is commonly used to manage spinal cord injury (SCI) after aortic surgery. However, there is still limited evidence regarding its effectiveness in patients with type A aortic dissection undergoing total arch replacement plus frozen elephant trunk procedure.

Methods: A total of 1931 patients were retrospectively enrolled between 2010 and 2023. Patients with high-risk postoperative SCI (N=445) were divided into 2 groups: with or without prophylactic CSFD to evaluate the protective effect of prophylactic CSFD. Patients with postoperative SCI (N=119) were divided into 3 groups, without CSFD, therapeutic CSFD, and prophylactic CSFD, and analyzed to compare the treatment effect of different CSFD strategies.

Results: Prophylactic CSFD significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative SCI in high-risk patients (26.9% versus 17.7%, P=0.029), further supported by matching weights analysis of propensity score and conditional logistic regression. Analyses of the SCI population revealed less severe SCI symptoms in patients with prophylactic CSFD, as assessed by the American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (adjusted P<0.05). Multivariable ordinal logistic regression showed that compared with those without CSFD, prophylactic CSFD (P=0.003) but not therapeutic CSFD (P=0.981) was beneficial to the in-hospital recovery of postoperative SCI. Long-term SCI outcomes did not differ among groups.

Conclusions: A prominent protective effect on SCI occurrence and recovery after the total arch replacement plus the frozen elephant trunk procedure was observed with prophylactic CSFD use in patients with type A aortic dissection. However, the effectiveness of therapeutic CSFD fell short of significance.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the American Heart Association
Journal of the American Heart Association CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
1749
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: As an Open Access journal, JAHA - Journal of the American Heart Association is rapidly and freely available, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice. JAHA is an authoritative, peer-reviewed Open Access journal focusing on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. JAHA provides a global forum for basic and clinical research and timely reviews on cardiovascular disease and stroke. As an Open Access journal, its content is free on publication to read, download, and share, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信