ArticleJournal of vascular surgery2025
Evolving practices of spinal drain use for branch/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair patients in the United States Aortic Research Consortium.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02089607 (Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life Measures in Patients Treated for Complex Abdominal, Thoracoabdominal and Aortic Arch Aneurysms or Dissections With Fenestrated and Branched Stent Grafts), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life Measures in Patients Treated for Complex Abdominal, Thoracoabdominal and Aortic Arch Aneurysms or Dissections With Fenestrated and Branched Stent Grafts
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spinal Cord Ischemia After Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Pathophysiology, Detection, and Management.Neurology international · 2026Review
- Increased clinical frailty is associated with aortic-related mortality following fenestrated and branched endovascular repair for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm.Journal of vascular surgery · 2026Article
- Prevention and Management of Spinal Cord Ischemia After Aortic Surgery: An Umbrella Review.Brain sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe use of cerebrospinal fluid drains (CSFDs) for the prevention or mitigation of spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a subject of debate for patients undergoing branch/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair. We sought to evaluate the practices surrounding CSFD use concurrently with rates of SCI occurrence, recovery, and CSFD complications in the US Aortic Research Consortium.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of the US Aortic Research Consortium registry consisting of patients undergoing branch/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair under individual physician-sponsored investigational device exemptions from January 2011 to April 2024. A composite variable consisting of SCI, major CSFD complication, or intracerebral hemorrhage was designated as the primary outcome. Patterns of CSFD use, rates of SCI and recovery, and CSFD complications were analyzed by year. Subanalyses were stratified by Crawford extent (CE) classification based on the length of aortic coverage, with high-risk patients defined as CE I to III. To further characterize the relationship between SCI and CSFD use, patient cohorts were compared by prophylactic CSFD (pCSFD) (n = 949), therapeutic CSFD (tCSFD) (n = 27), and no CSFD (n = 1609). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine variables associated with the composite outcome. Survival analysis was conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsAmong 2585 patients, 196 (7.6%) experienced the composite outcome, gradually declining from a maximum of 25.0% (5 patients) in 2011 to 2.9% (11 patients) in 2023. Concurrently, the use of pCSFDs declined from a maximum of 100% in 2011 to 11.0% in 2023 without any substantial increase in tCSFDs. Among high-risk patients (n = 1026), 132 (12.9%) experienced the primary composite outcome, declining from a maximum of 38.5% (5 patients) in 2013 to 3.1% (4 patients) in 2023. PCSFDs in high-risk patients, although nearly universal (92.9%-100%) until 2016, have also been on a continuous decline, reaching a minimum of 23.1% in 2024, without increase in tCSFD use (0%-5.9%). The degree of SCI resolution was not significantly different in the pCSFD (94 patients, 45.7% complete resolution), tCSFD (23 patients, 43.5% complete resolution), or no CSFD (21 patients, 42.9% complete resolution) cohorts (P = .11). Major CSFD complications did not differ between the pCSFD and tCSFD cohorts (13.4% vs 12.0%; P = .85). Multivariable logistic regression revealed CE II (odds ratio [OR], 2.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48-3.75; P < .001) and III (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.31-3.40; P = .002), staging (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.17-2.35; P = .004), and estimated blood loss of >350 mL (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.11-2.09; P = .009) to be associated significantly with the composite outcome.
conclusionsComposite outcome rates have continued to improve despite declining pCSFD use. SCI recovery was not impacted favorably regardless of pCSFD, tCSFD, or no CSFD use. In the setting of comprehensive SCI prevention protocols, pCSFD use may not be warranted, even in most high-risk patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.