• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

胸段血管腔内主动脉修复术中脊髓麻醉的应用

Use of Spinal Anesthesia during Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.

作者信息

Gross Benjamin D, Zhu Jerry, Rao Ajit, Ilonzo Nicole, Storch Jason, Faries Peter L, Marin Michael L, George Justin M, Tadros Rami O

机构信息

Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.

Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.

出版信息

Ann Vasc Surg. 2024 Feb;99:242-251. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2023.08.017. Epub 2023 Oct 5.

DOI:10.1016/j.avsg.2023.08.017
PMID:37802146
Abstract

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes after spinal anesthesia (SA) versus general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing thoracic endograft placement and to evaluate the adjunctive use of cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) placement.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review of patients that underwent thoracic endograft placement from 2001 to 2019 was performed. Patients were stratified based on the type of anesthesia they received: GA, SA or epidural, GA with CSFD, and SA with CSFD. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality and length of stay (LOS). Baseline characteristics were analyzed with Student's t-test and Pearson's chi-squared test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for 30-day mortality and longer LOS.

RESULTS

A total of 333 patients underwent thoracic endograft placement; 104 patients received SA, 180 patients received GA, 30 patients received GA and CSFD, and 19 patients received SA and CSFD. Of the total patients, 16.2% underwent thoracic endograft placement for type B aortic dissection, 3.3% for type A aortic dissection, and 12.3% for penetrating ulcer. The mean age of the study population was 68.7 years old. Patients undergoing SA were older with a mean age of 73.4 years versus 64.7 years for patients undergoing GA (P < 0.001). Spinal anesthesia (SA) was preferred in patients at high risk for GA (>75 years old: 52.9% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.001; renal comorbidities: 20.6% vs. 10.6%, P = 0.03, and current smokers: 26.7% vs. 9.6%, P < 0.001). Length of stay (LOS) was decreased in the SA group (4.29 days vs. 9.70 days, P < 0.001). There was a lower incidence of spinal cord ischemia in the SA group (1.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.44), as well as significantly decreased 30-day mortality (0% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.01), reintervention (19.2% vs. 26.8%, P = 0.02), and return to the operating room (6.8% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.02). Of the 19 patients that had SA + CSFD, there were no signs and symptoms of spinal cord ischemia and decreased incidence of perioperative complications (0% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.01). There was no difference in the risk for intraoperative complications, neurologic complications, or 30-day mortality between GA + CSFD patients versus SA + CSFD patients. Age >75 (P = 0.002), intraoperative complications (P < 0.001), and perioperative complications (P = 0.02) were associated with increased mortality after thoracic endograft placement per multivariate logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal anesthesia (SA) in select high-risk patients was associated with reduced 30-day mortality, neurologic complications, and LOS compared to GA. The concurrent use of spinal drainage and SA had satisfactory results compared to spinal drainage and GA.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在评估接受胸主动脉腔内修复术的患者行脊髓麻醉(SA)与全身麻醉(GA)后的结局,并评估脑脊液引流(CSFD)的辅助使用情况。

方法

对2001年至2019年接受胸主动脉腔内修复术的患者进行单中心回顾性研究。根据患者接受的麻醉类型进行分层:GA、SA或硬膜外麻醉、GA联合CSFD、SA联合CSFD。主要结局包括30天死亡率和住院时间(LOS)。采用Student t检验和Pearson卡方检验分析基线特征。进行多因素logistic回归分析以确定30天死亡率和更长住院时间的危险因素。

结果

共有333例患者接受了胸主动脉腔内修复术;104例患者接受SA,180例患者接受GA,30例患者接受GA联合CSFD,19例患者接受SA联合CSFD。在所有患者中,16.2%因B型主动脉夹层接受胸主动脉腔内修复术,3.3%因A型主动脉夹层,12.3%因穿透性溃疡。研究人群的平均年龄为68.7岁。接受SA的患者年龄较大,平均年龄为73.4岁,而接受GA的患者平均年龄为64.7岁(P<0.001)。GA高风险患者(>75岁:52.9%对33.3%,P<0.001;合并肾脏疾病:20.6%对10.6%,P=0.03;当前吸烟者:26.7%对9.6%,P<0.001)更倾向于选择脊髓麻醉(SA)。SA组的住院时间(LOS)缩短(4.29天对9.70天,P<0.001)。SA组脊髓缺血的发生率较低(1.0%对2.2%,P=0.44),30天死亡率也显著降低(0%对5.6%,P=0.01),再次干预(19.2%对26.8%,P=0.02)以及返回手术室的比例(6.8%对12.7%,P=0.02)。在19例接受SA+CSFD的患者中,没有脊髓缺血的体征和症状,围手术期并发症的发生率降低(0%对33.3%,P=0.01)。GA+CSFD患者与SA+CSFD患者在术中并发症、神经并发症或30天死亡率方面没有差异。根据多因素logistic回归分析,年龄>75岁(P=0.002)、术中并发症(P<0.001)和围手术期并发症(P=0.02)与胸主动脉腔内修复术后死亡率增加相关。

结论

与GA相比,选择性高风险患者行脊髓麻醉(SA)可降低30天死亡率、神经并发症和住院时间。与脊髓引流联合GA相比,脊髓引流联合SA的效果令人满意。

相似文献

1
Use of Spinal Anesthesia during Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair.胸段血管腔内主动脉修复术中脊髓麻醉的应用
Ann Vasc Surg. 2024 Feb;99:242-251. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2023.08.017. Epub 2023 Oct 5.
2
Risk factors for spinal cord injury and complications of cerebrospinal fluid drainage in patients undergoing fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair.接受开窗和分支型血管内动脉瘤修复术患者脊髓损伤及脑脊液引流并发症的危险因素。
J Vasc Surg. 2021 Feb;73(2):399-409.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.05.070. Epub 2020 Jul 5.
3
Systematic review and meta-analysis of association of prophylactic cerebrospinal fluid drainage in preventing spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.胸主动脉腔内修复术后预防性脑脊液引流预防脊髓缺血相关性的系统评价与荟萃分析
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Apr;75(4):1478-1489.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.10.050. Epub 2021 Nov 15.
4
Trends in the use of cerebrospinal drains and outcomes related to spinal cord ischemia after thoracic endovascular aortic repair and complex endovascular aortic repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative database.在血管质量倡议数据库中,胸段血管腔内主动脉修复术和复杂血管腔内主动脉修复术后脑脊液引流的使用趋势及与脊髓缺血相关的结果。
J Vasc Surg. 2021 Oct;74(4):1067-1078. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.01.075. Epub 2021 Apr 1.
5
Comparison of Landmark-Guided Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Cerebrospinal Fluid Drain-Related Complications After Aortic Repairs.主动脉修复术后基于解剖标志与透视引导下脑脊液引流相关并发症的比较。
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2023 Sep;37(9):1707-1713. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2023.05.048. Epub 2023 Jun 2.
6
Cerebrospinal fluid drainage complications during first stage and completion fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair.一期开窗分支血管腔内修复术中脑脊液引流并发症。
J Vasc Surg. 2020 Apr;71(4):1109-1118.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2019.06.210. Epub 2019 Sep 26.
7
Risk factors for spinal cord ischemia after endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.胸腹主动脉瘤血管腔内修复术后脊髓缺血的危险因素。
J Vasc Surg. 2015 Jun;61(6):1408-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2015.01.044. Epub 2015 Mar 28.
8
Spinal drain-related complications after complex endovascular aortic repair using a prophylactic automated volume-directed drainage protocol.采用预防性自动容量导向引流方案的复杂血管内主动脉修复术后与引流管相关的并发症。
J Vasc Surg. 2023 Sep;78(3):575-583.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.03.505. Epub 2023 Apr 25.
9
Early experience with automatic pressure-controlled cerebrospinal fluid drainage during thoracic endovascular aortic repair.胸主动脉腔内修复术中自动压力控制脑脊液引流的早期经验。
J Endovasc Ther. 2015 Jun;22(3):368-72. doi: 10.1177/1526602815579904. Epub 2015 Apr 10.
10
Perioperative Cerebrospinal Fluid Drain Placement Does Not Increase Venous Thromboembolism Risk After Thoracic and Fenestrated Endovascular Aortic Repair.胸主动脉腔内修复和开窗术后围手术期放置脑脊液引流并不会增加静脉血栓栓塞风险。
Ann Vasc Surg. 2024 Feb;99:58-64. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2023.09.079. Epub 2023 Nov 14.