Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia · 2024
Comparing reactive versus empiric cerebrospinal fluid drainage strategies for spinal perfusion pressure optimization in patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injuries.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lavadi Raj S, Johnson Benjamin R, Chalif Joshua I, Shanahan Regan, Das Ashtah, Hamilton David K, Agarwal Nitin, Fields Daryl P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Spinal cord hypoperfusion undermines clinical recovery in acute traumatic spinal cord injuries. New guidelines suggest cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drainage is an important strategy for preventing spinal cord hypoperfusion in the acute post-injury phase.
METHODS: This study included participants presenting to a single level 1 trauma center between 2018 and 2022 with cervical or thoracic traumatic spinal cord injury severity grade A-C, as evaluated by the American spinal injury association impairment scale (AIS). The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of two CSF drainage protocols in preventing spinal cord hypoperfusion; 1) draining CSF only when spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) drops below 65 mmHg (i.e. reactive) versus 2) empiric CSF drainage of 5-10 mL every hour. Intrathecal pressure, spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and vasopressor utilization were compared using univariate T-test statistical analysis.
RESULTS: While there was no difference in the incidence of sub-optimal SCPP (<65 mmHg; p = 0.1658), reactively drained participants were more likely to exhibit critical hypoperfusion (<50 mmHg; p = 0.0030) despite also having lower average intrathecal pressures (p < 0.001). There were no differences in average SCPP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), or vasopressor utilization between the two groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Empiric (vs reactive) CSF drainage resulted in fewer incidences of critical spinal cord hypoperfusion for patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injuries.
METHODS: This study included participants presenting to a single level 1 trauma center between 2018 and 2022 with cervical or thoracic traumatic spinal cord injury severity grade A-C, as evaluated by the American spinal injury association impairment scale (AIS). The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of two CSF drainage protocols in preventing spinal cord hypoperfusion; 1) draining CSF only when spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) drops below 65 mmHg (i.e. reactive) versus 2) empiric CSF drainage of 5-10 mL every hour. Intrathecal pressure, spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and vasopressor utilization were compared using univariate T-test statistical analysis.
RESULTS: While there was no difference in the incidence of sub-optimal SCPP (<65 mmHg; p = 0.1658), reactively drained participants were more likely to exhibit critical hypoperfusion (<50 mmHg; p = 0.0030) despite also having lower average intrathecal pressures (p < 0.001). There were no differences in average SCPP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), or vasopressor utilization between the two groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Empiric (vs reactive) CSF drainage resulted in fewer incidences of critical spinal cord hypoperfusion for patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injuries.