胸腹血管内手术中预防性脑脊液引流和脊髓缺血:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2023-09-28 Epub Date: 2023-07-12 DOI:10.21037/acs-2023-scp-17
Cheng-Hao Jacky Chen, Henry Jiang, Vinh Dat David Nguyen
{"title":"胸腹血管内手术中预防性脑脊液引流和脊髓缺血:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Cheng-Hao Jacky Chen, Henry Jiang, Vinh Dat David Nguyen","doi":"10.21037/acs-2023-scp-17","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is one of the most devastating complications of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) has been shown to decrease the risk of SCI in open thoracic aortic procedures; however, its utility in TEVAR remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to determine the role of prophylactic CSFD in preventing SCI in TEVAR. Methods A literature search of five databases was performed and all studies published before September 2022 that reported SCI rates in TEVAR patients undergoing prophylactic CSFD were included. A random effects meta-analysis of means or proportions was performed for single-arm data. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported for comparisons between groups. Results A total of 4,793 patients undergoing TEVAR from 40 studies were included. The mean age was 68.8 years and 70.9% of patients were male. The overall SCI rate was 3.5%, with a 1.3% rate of immediate SCI and a 1.9% rate of delayed SCI. There were no significant differences in SCI rates between prophylactic CSFD patients and non-drained patients. Routine CSFD did not have a significant impact on SCI rates compared to non-drained patients. There was an increased rate of transient SCI with selective CSFD compared to non-drained patients (OR 2.08; 95% CI: 1.06–4.08; P=0.03). The most common drain-related complication was spinal headache (4.3%). The major complication rate was 1.6%, of which epidural or spinal hematoma (0.9%) was the most common, followed by intracranial or subdural hemorrhage (0.8%) and paraparesis or paraplegia (0.8%). Conclusions This study found no significant difference in SCI rates between prophylactic CSFD patients and their non-drained counterparts. CSFD is associated with a small but non-negligible risk of serious complications. Multi-center randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to help stratify the risk of both SCI and CSFD-related complications in patients undergoing endovascular aortic procedures.","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ab/e2/acs-12-05-392.PMC10561335.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage and spinal cord ischemia in thoracic and thoracoabdominal endovascular procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Cheng-Hao Jacky Chen, Henry Jiang, Vinh Dat David Nguyen\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/acs-2023-scp-17\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is one of the most devastating complications of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) has been shown to decrease the risk of SCI in open thoracic aortic procedures; however, its utility in TEVAR remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to determine the role of prophylactic CSFD in preventing SCI in TEVAR. Methods A literature search of five databases was performed and all studies published before September 2022 that reported SCI rates in TEVAR patients undergoing prophylactic CSFD were included. A random effects meta-analysis of means or proportions was performed for single-arm data. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported for comparisons between groups. Results A total of 4,793 patients undergoing TEVAR from 40 studies were included. The mean age was 68.8 years and 70.9% of patients were male. The overall SCI rate was 3.5%, with a 1.3% rate of immediate SCI and a 1.9% rate of delayed SCI. There were no significant differences in SCI rates between prophylactic CSFD patients and non-drained patients. Routine CSFD did not have a significant impact on SCI rates compared to non-drained patients. There was an increased rate of transient SCI with selective CSFD compared to non-drained patients (OR 2.08; 95% CI: 1.06–4.08; P=0.03). The most common drain-related complication was spinal headache (4.3%). The major complication rate was 1.6%, of which epidural or spinal hematoma (0.9%) was the most common, followed by intracranial or subdural hemorrhage (0.8%) and paraparesis or paraplegia (0.8%). Conclusions This study found no significant difference in SCI rates between prophylactic CSFD patients and their non-drained counterparts. CSFD is associated with a small but non-negligible risk of serious complications. Multi-center randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to help stratify the risk of both SCI and CSFD-related complications in patients undergoing endovascular aortic procedures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ab/e2/acs-12-05-392.PMC10561335.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/acs-2023-scp-17\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/acs-2023-scp-17","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:脊髓缺血(SCI)是胸主动脉腔内修复(TEVAR)最具破坏性的并发症之一。预防性脑脊液引流(CSFD)已被证明可以降低开胸主动脉手术中发生SCI的风险;然而,它在TEVAR中的效用仍然不确定。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在确定预防性CSFD在TEVAR中预防SCI的作用。方法:对五个数据库进行文献检索,包括2022年9月之前发表的所有报告接受预防性CSFD的TEVAR患者SCI发生率的研究。对单臂数据的平均值或比例进行随机效应荟萃分析。报告了具有95%置信区间(CI)的比值比(OR),用于组间比较。结果:共纳入40项研究中的4793名接受TEVAR的患者。平均年龄68.8岁,男性占70.9%。总的SCI发生率为3.5%,其中即时SCI发生率1.3%,延迟性SCI发生率1.9%。预防性CSFD患者和非引流患者的SCI发生率没有显著差异。与未引流的患者相比,常规CSFD对SCI发生率没有显著影响。与非引流患者相比,选择性CSFD的短暂性SCI发生率增加(OR 2.08;95%CI:1.06-4.08;P=0.03)。最常见的引流相关并发症是脊髓性头痛(4.3%)。主要并发症发生率为1.6%,其中硬膜外或脊髓血肿(0.9%)最常见,其次是颅内或硬膜下出血(0.8%)和轻瘫或截瘫(0.8%)。结论:本研究发现,预防性CSFD患者与非引流患者的SCI发生率没有显著差异。CSFD与严重并发症的风险很小但不可忽略。多中心随机对照试验(RCT)有助于对接受血管内主动脉手术的患者中SCI和CSFD相关并发症的风险进行分层。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage and spinal cord ischemia in thoracic and thoracoabdominal endovascular procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is one of the most devastating complications of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). Prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) has been shown to decrease the risk of SCI in open thoracic aortic procedures; however, its utility in TEVAR remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to determine the role of prophylactic CSFD in preventing SCI in TEVAR. Methods A literature search of five databases was performed and all studies published before September 2022 that reported SCI rates in TEVAR patients undergoing prophylactic CSFD were included. A random effects meta-analysis of means or proportions was performed for single-arm data. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported for comparisons between groups. Results A total of 4,793 patients undergoing TEVAR from 40 studies were included. The mean age was 68.8 years and 70.9% of patients were male. The overall SCI rate was 3.5%, with a 1.3% rate of immediate SCI and a 1.9% rate of delayed SCI. There were no significant differences in SCI rates between prophylactic CSFD patients and non-drained patients. Routine CSFD did not have a significant impact on SCI rates compared to non-drained patients. There was an increased rate of transient SCI with selective CSFD compared to non-drained patients (OR 2.08; 95% CI: 1.06–4.08; P=0.03). The most common drain-related complication was spinal headache (4.3%). The major complication rate was 1.6%, of which epidural or spinal hematoma (0.9%) was the most common, followed by intracranial or subdural hemorrhage (0.8%) and paraparesis or paraplegia (0.8%). Conclusions This study found no significant difference in SCI rates between prophylactic CSFD patients and their non-drained counterparts. CSFD is associated with a small but non-negligible risk of serious complications. Multi-center randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to help stratify the risk of both SCI and CSFD-related complications in patients undergoing endovascular aortic procedures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
期刊最新文献
Hyperbaric oxygen treatment promotes tendon-bone interface healing in a rabbit model of rotator cuff tears. Oxygen-ozone therapy for myocardial ischemic stroke and cardiovascular disorders. Comparative study on the anti-inflammatory and protective effects of different oxygen therapy regimens on lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury in mice. Heme oxygenase/carbon monoxide system and development of the heart. Hyperbaric oxygen for moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury: outcomes 5-8 years after injury.
×
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