Efficacy and Safety of Lumbar Drainage before Endovascular Treatment for Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms.

Journal of neuroendovascular therapy Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-13 DOI:10.5797/jnet.oa.2023-0069
Toshitsugu Terakado, Yoshiro Ito, Koji Hirata, Masayuki Sato, Tomoji Takigawa, Aiki Marushima, Mikito Hayakawa, Wataro Tsuruta, Noriyuki Kato, Yasunobu Nakai, Kensuke Suzuki, Yuji Matsumaru, Eiichi Ishikawa
{"title":"Efficacy and Safety of Lumbar Drainage before Endovascular Treatment for Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms.","authors":"Toshitsugu Terakado, Yoshiro Ito, Koji Hirata, Masayuki Sato, Tomoji Takigawa, Aiki Marushima, Mikito Hayakawa, Wataro Tsuruta, Noriyuki Kato, Yasunobu Nakai, Kensuke Suzuki, Yuji Matsumaru, Eiichi Ishikawa","doi":"10.5797/jnet.oa.2023-0069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Intraoperative rebleeding during endovascular treatment for ruptured intracranial aneurysms is associated with poor prognosis. Lumbar drainage is performed preoperatively to control intracranial pressure; however, it is associated with a risk of brain herniation or rebleeding because intracranial pressure may change rapidly. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of preoperative lumbar drainage.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study enrolled 375 patients who underwent endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms at our institution between April 2013 and March 2018. The incidence of rebleeding and clinical outcomes were compared between patients who did and did not undergo preoperative lumbar drainage.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 375 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms, 324 (86.0%) and 51 (14.0%) patients did and did not undergo lumbar drainage, respectively. The incidence of rebleeding was 11/324 (3.4%) and 2/51 (3.9%) in lumbar drainage and nonlumbar drainage groups, respectively, with no statistical differences (p = 0.98). Of the rebleeding cases, 9/11 (81%) and 2/2 (100%) in lumbar drainage and nonlumbar drainage groups, respectively, were due to intraoperative bleeding, and 2/11 (19%) in the lumbar drainage group, the causes of the rebleeding were undetermined. The incidence of symptomatic vasospasm did not differ significantly between the groups (13.2% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.776), while the incidence of hydrocephalus (24.6% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.043) and meningitis (15.2% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.075) were slightly higher in the lumbar drainage group. Favorable clinical outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score <2) at discharge were less frequent in the lumbar drainage group (55.3% vs. 70.0%, P = 0.051). No significant differences were observed in the propensity score-matched analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Lumbar drainage before endovascular treatment for ruptured intracranial aneurysms is a safe procedure that does not increase the incidence of rebleeding.</p>","PeriodicalId":73856,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neuroendovascular therapy","volume":"18 2","pages":"29-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10878735/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neuroendovascular therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5797/jnet.oa.2023-0069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Intraoperative rebleeding during endovascular treatment for ruptured intracranial aneurysms is associated with poor prognosis. Lumbar drainage is performed preoperatively to control intracranial pressure; however, it is associated with a risk of brain herniation or rebleeding because intracranial pressure may change rapidly. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of preoperative lumbar drainage.

Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 375 patients who underwent endovascular treatment of ruptured intracranial aneurysms at our institution between April 2013 and March 2018. The incidence of rebleeding and clinical outcomes were compared between patients who did and did not undergo preoperative lumbar drainage.

Results: Among the 375 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms, 324 (86.0%) and 51 (14.0%) patients did and did not undergo lumbar drainage, respectively. The incidence of rebleeding was 11/324 (3.4%) and 2/51 (3.9%) in lumbar drainage and nonlumbar drainage groups, respectively, with no statistical differences (p = 0.98). Of the rebleeding cases, 9/11 (81%) and 2/2 (100%) in lumbar drainage and nonlumbar drainage groups, respectively, were due to intraoperative bleeding, and 2/11 (19%) in the lumbar drainage group, the causes of the rebleeding were undetermined. The incidence of symptomatic vasospasm did not differ significantly between the groups (13.2% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.776), while the incidence of hydrocephalus (24.6% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.043) and meningitis (15.2% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.075) were slightly higher in the lumbar drainage group. Favorable clinical outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score <2) at discharge were less frequent in the lumbar drainage group (55.3% vs. 70.0%, P = 0.051). No significant differences were observed in the propensity score-matched analysis.

Conclusion: Lumbar drainage before endovascular treatment for ruptured intracranial aneurysms is a safe procedure that does not increase the incidence of rebleeding.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
颅内动脉瘤破裂血管内治疗前进行腰椎引流的有效性和安全性
目的:血管内治疗颅内动脉瘤破裂期间的术中再出血与预后不良有关。术前进行腰椎引流术可控制颅内压,但由于颅内压可能迅速变化,因此存在脑疝或再出血的风险。因此,本研究旨在探讨术前腰椎引流的有效性和安全性:这项回顾性研究纳入了 2013 年 4 月至 2018 年 3 月期间在我院接受血管内治疗的 375 例颅内动脉瘤破裂患者。比较了术前接受和未接受腰椎引流术的患者再出血的发生率和临床预后:在375例颅内动脉瘤破裂患者中,分别有324例(86.0%)和51例(14.0%)患者接受和未接受腰椎引流术。腰部引流组和非腰部引流组的再出血发生率分别为 11/324(3.4%)和 2/51(3.9%),无统计学差异(P = 0.98)。在再出血病例中,腰椎引流组和非腰椎引流组分别有 9/11 例(81%)和 2/2 例(100%)是由于术中出血,腰椎引流组有 2/11 例(19%)再出血原因不明。两组症状性血管痉挛的发生率无明显差异(13.2% 对 11.8%,P = 0.776),而腰椎引流组脑积水(24.6% 对 11.8%,P = 0.043)和脑膜炎(15.2% 对 5.9%,P = 0.075)的发生率略高。良好的临床结果(改良Rankin量表评分 结论:腰椎引流术后的临床结果良好:在血管内治疗颅内动脉瘤破裂前进行腰椎引流术是一种安全的手术,不会增加再出血的发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Case of Acute Ischemic Stroke due to Tandem Lesion Treated with Endovascular Thrombectomy by Internal Carotid Artery Direct Puncture. A Case of Cavernous Sinus Dural Arteriovenous Fistula with Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava. A Case of Flow Diverter Placement for a Recurrent Large Thrombosed Middle Cerebral Artery Aneurysm. An Updated Review on the Pathogenesis of Brain Arteriovenous Malformations and Its Therapeutic Targets. Early Antithrombotic Therapy in Acute Ischemic Stroke.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1