Over the last decade, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has increasingly become a mainstay of therapy for thoracic aortic diseases such as aneurysm and acute aortic syndromes. Despite being less invasive than open surgical repair, TEVAR procedures are still associated with a significant risk of spinal cord injury (SCI). Crawford was the first to describe a thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) classification system in 1986. The classification system, developed when only open repair was being performed, was based on the extent of the aorta involved, but it also showed an association with the relative incidence of SCI. Subsequently, the incidence of SCI after TEVAR has been largely comparable with that after open TAAA repair when compared with a similar Crawford classification (Fig. 1).1 The overall incidence of SCI (i.e., paresis or paralysis) after TEVAR ranges from 2-10%.2,3 For example, in 2011, Ullery et al. 4 reported a 2.8% incidence of SCI in a study of 424 TEVAR procedures. In 2013, DeSart et al. 5 reported a 9.4% of SCI in 607 TEVAR procedures, and in 2014, Scali et al. 6 showed a 9.2% incidence of SCI in 741 TEVAR procedures.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair according to Crawford’s Classification and the risk of ischemic spinal cord injury as reported by centres of excellence for aortic repair. (Reprinted by permission of Edizioni Minerva Medica from: Etz DC, Luehr M, Aspern KV, et al. Spinal cord ischemia in open and endovascular thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair: new concepts. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2014; 55(2 Suppl 1): 159-68).3 TAAA = thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm

Full size image

The pathogenesis of SCI after TEVAR is multifactorial and not fully understood. There are two suggested theories behind the mechanism of SCI. The first relates to inadequate remodelling of the collateral blood supply network to maintain spinal cord viability. The second implicates atheroembolism of aortic plaque material into the segmental arteries supplying the spinal cord. Although considerable debate is circulating in the literature on the optimal preventive and definitive treatment measures for SCI after TEVAR, the main strategies are aimed at increasing mean arterial blood pressure and draining cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in order to optimize spinal cord perfusion pressure (and blood flow). The American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association guidelines (though not updated since 2010) recommend CSF drainage for spinal cord protection in open TAAA repair and TEVAR for patients at high risk of SCI—determined by the presence of specific risk factors (e.g., prior abdominal aortic surgery).7 In 2015, the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery similarly recommended CSF drainage for TAAA repair in patients at high risk of SCI.8 Although randomized-controlled studies showed benefit for CSF drainage in open TAAA repair,9 its routine use in TEVAR procedures remains uncertain and a topic of considerable debate.8,10,11

The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the risk factors for and the pathophysiology and clinical presentation of SCI following TEVAR, as well as to highlight the relevant anesthetic practices and recent surgical techniques for its prevention and treatment.

Risk of SCI in TEVAR

The advantages of the relatively less-invasive TEVAR compared with TAAA open repair are consistent with what one might expect by avoiding the extensive surgical trauma following open TAAA repair. These benefits include reductions in intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, hospital length of stay, organ dysfunction, postoperative pain, and overall costs.12,13 Nevertheless, a similar reduction has not been seen in the incidence of SCI. To estimate the risk of SCI in TEVAR, Uchida reviewed 59 studies involving 7,309 TEVAR patients.14 Study results showed a 0-10.3% incidence of SCI, with an average of 4.5%. Recently, Etz et al.3 analyzed the risk of paralysis reported by “aortic centres of excellence” from six clinical trials of TEVAR that included 1,050 patients (from 2001 to 2008) and ten clinical trials with open TAAA repair in 6,034 patients (from 2005 to 2011). The trial results showed that the open TAAA repair and TEVAR procedures had similar rates of paralysis, especially for type II aortic aneurysm (0-22% in open TAAA repair vs 19% in TEVAR) (Fig. 1). Nevertheless, only one study mentioned the risk of SCI in TEVAR in relation to the Crawford classification. In this retrospective study, the authors reviewed 724 thoracic or TAAA repair procedures (352 TEVAR patients and 372 open TAAA repair patients). Study results did not show a significant difference in the incidence of SCI between both procedures (4.3% for TEVAR vs 7.5% for open TAAA repair; P = 0.08).15 Indeed, when compared with open TAAA repair, the reduction in SCI and paralysis was less than expected with TEVAR; moreover, delayed paralysis (i.e., > 24 hr following the procedure) occurred more frequently than acute paralysis.4,10,16

The limitation of the current literature in estimating the risk of SCI after TEVAR vs that after open TAAA repair is due to the lack of direct comparative prospective studies. In addition, the indications for TEVAR are expanding to include patients at lower risk of developing perioperative complications, which may bias recent results when compared with previous studies. Furthermore, potentially important patient demographic and surgical details are inconsistently reported in the clinical trials. Finally, the continued refinement of surgical techniques and the development of newer techniques (e.g., minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization [MISACE] and temporary aneurysm sac perfusion [TASP]) may have an impact on the risk of SCI, which makes direct comparisons even more difficult. In future, comprehensive systematic reviews and meta-analysis that account for the previously mentioned limitations may provide a more accurate estimate of the relative risk of SCI in TEVAR patients.

Pathophysiology of SCI after TEVAR

The blood supply to the spinal cord is arguably more complex than the blood supply to any other vital organ.17 Its main blood supply comes from one anterior spinal artery and two posterior spinal arteries that run longitudinally along the cord. These anterior and posterior spinal vessels, originating from the vertebral arteries, are fed by additional collaterals from paired segmental arteries arising directly from the aorta, with two or three in the cervical region, two or three in the thoracic region, and none or one in the lumbosacral region.18 In the thoracic region, these segmental arteries arise from the aorta or the subclavian artery as intercostal arteries. The segmental arteries divide into muscular and spinal branches. The spinal branches give rise to anterior and posterior radicular arteries that join the anterior and posterior spinal arteries. The most dominant anterior radiculomedullary artery in the thoracolumbar area is known as the artery of Adamkiewicz (Fig. 2). Although historically it was considered the most important vessel supplying the spinal cord, this has largely been discounted in recent years.19

Fig. 2
figure 2

Evolution of the dynamic nature of spinal cord ischemia and paralysis after TEVAR. A: Blood flows in the paraspinous and intraspinous network under normal conditions. The arterial system is divided into a central centrifugal system supplied by the sulcal arteries and a peripheral centripetal system supplied by the pial network surrounding the spinal cord. B: Occlusion of the segmental arteries following aortic stent placement is accompanied by several compensatory mechanisms to maintain integrity of the spinal cord: (1) rerouting of blood flow from the paraspinous to the intraspinous network through the dorsal branch of the dorsal spinal artery to the ventral branch of the dorsal spinal artery supplying the radiculomedullary artery (red arrows); (2) intramedullary intraspinous collateral network between the anterior and posterior spinal arteries (green arrows); (3) extramedullary collaterals from the pial plexus; and (4) reversal of blood flow within the anterior spinal artery from nearby non-occluded segmental arteries (blue arrow). C: Failure of one or more of these compensatory mechanisms (black crosses) may lead to spinal cord ischemia: (1) No blood flow from the paraspinous to the intraspinous network (the blue color represents a thrombus in the segmental artery); (2) Absent intramedullary and extramedullary collaterals; (3) No reversal of blood flow within the anterior spinal artery from nearby non-occluded segmental arteries. (Used with permission from: Martirosyan NL, Feuerstein JS, Theodore N, Cavalcanti DD, Spetzler RF, Preul MC. Blood supply and vascular reactivity of the spinal cord under normal and pathological conditions. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 15: 238-51)48 and modified by our group to explain compensatory mechanisms within the spinal cord collateral vascular network and pathophysiology of spinal cord injury in TEVAR). TEVAR = thoracic endovascular aortic repair; ASA = anterior spinal artery; PSA = posterior spinal artery; a = artery

Full size image

The concept of what constitutes the main blood supply to the spinal cord has evolved in recent years and has a direct impact on understanding the relationship between the blood supply of the spinal cord and SCI. In the past, there was widespread opinion that the single artery of Adamkiewicz was the most important contributor to the development of SCI after aortic aneurysm repair.20 Currently, however, there is growing experimental and clinical evidence to suggest that impairment in the collateral network of blood vessels in the spinal cord is more important to SCI than any single artery.3,21 This collateral network is an interconnected network of blood vessels between the anterior spinal artery (i.e., the intraspinous network) and the blood supply of the adjacent muscles of the back (i.e., the paraspinous network). There are also multilevel connections to the adjacent muscles within the intraspinous network— i.e., above and below any particular spinal cord segment. The arterial system of the spinal cord itself is divided into a central centrifugal system supplied by the sulcal arteries and a peripheral centripetal system supplied by the pial network surrounding the spinal cord.18 This interconnected network acts as an important alternate source of blood supply when a principal input is excluded, such as with segmental artery exclusion after thoracic stent deployment.3,21

Aortic cross-clamping during open TAAA repair results in proximal (to the clamp) hypertension, increased central venous pressure (CVP), increased intracranial pressure, and distal hypotension.22,23 The latter causes renal and/or intestinal ischemia as well as lower limb ischemia. The distal hypotension also directly impacts the blood supply to the spinal cord and reduces the spinal cord perfusion pressure, leading to ischemia.23,24,25 Additionally, after aortic unclamping, reperfusion can contribute to injury of the spinal cord through an associated inflammatory response.26 Reimplantation of the segmental arteries arising from the excised aortic aneurysmal sac has been suggested to reduce SCI. Nevertheless, there is considerable disagreement among vascular surgeons regarding the management of the segmental arteries in open TAAA repair. For example, many opt to reimplant all intercostal arteries into the aortic graft, while others choose either to reimplant only critical segmental arteries or not to reimplant at all.27

Because TEVAR does not involve the physiologic perturbations associated with aortic cross-clamping or the associated reperfusion injury to the spinal cord, this led to the expectation of significantly lower rates of paralysis. Nevertheless, TEVAR does permanently exclude many of the segmental arteries occluded by a covered thoracic stent, which may have longer-lasting effects on compromising spinal cord blood flow28 than relatively brief periods of aortic cross-clamping during open repair.

Immediate paralysis presents following open TAAA repair, whereas delayed paralysis is a more common presentation of SCI after TEVAR. A possible explanation for these differing clinical presentations is that the aortic cross-clamp-mediated spinal cord ischemia (and direct ligation of intercostal vessels) and reperfusion injury may further contribute to immediate ischemia. The fact that the aneurysm sac (with its intercostal tributaries) is left intact during TEVAR may contribute to the development of delayed SCI following the eventual cessation of stent endoleak. Nevertheless, there is a lack of evidence on the exact pathophysiologic differences.

With deployment of a covered stent during TEVAR, collateral network remodelling is thought to play an important role in maintaining spinal cord blood flow by changing the distribution of blood flow in the intraspinous and paraspinous collateral network after segmental artery exclusion.29 Rerouting of blood flow from the paraspinous to the intraspinous network helps to maintain spinal cord viability and function (Fig. 2). This is achieved by an enlargement in the diameter of the intraspinous network and a change in the orientation of the vessels of the paraspinous network from a relatively perpendicular orientation to an alignment parallel to the spinal cord. This results in a greater percentage of the mean aortic pressure being transmitted to the spinal cord. Etz et al. 29 described these changes in an experimental porcine model and showed that this remodelling occurs over the two to five days after surgery. In addition, Colman et al. 19 suggested that perfused non-occluded segmental arteries (either proximal or distal to the covering stent) can maintain blood flow to the ischemic spinal cord segment. This is achieved by reversing the direction of blood flow within the anterior spinal artery through either an antegrade direction from the proximal arteries or a retrograde direction from the distal segmental arteries. If all these compensatory mechanisms are insufficient or fail secondary to thrombus formation in the intraspinous or paraspinous network, embolism, or cessation of stent endoleak, spinal cord ischemia (i.e., frequently delayed) can occur (Fig. 2).30 The onset and severity of injury after TEVAR depends on the ability of the collateral network to supply the marginally vascularized area in the critical zone of the spinal cord known as the watershed area in the grey matter.21,28,31,32

Another emerging factor involved in the pathogenesis of SCI after TEVAR is atheroembolism from dislodgement of aortic plaque (due to manipulation of guidewires and stent deployment during the surgical procedure) occluding segmental vessels.33 Indeed, Zipfel et al. 34 described 11 patients with SCI in their cohort of 406 TEVAR patients and attributed the cause of paralysis in three of these patients to atheroembolism. This was established in one of these patients after analysis of the computed tomographic scan of the aorta revealed presence of a mobile atheroma. The other two patients had a circular thrombus at the distal landing site, in addition to the unilateral clinical presentation of their paralysis, which further supported atheroembolism as the cause of paralysis. Tanaka et al. 35 further examined the role of embolization in causing paralysis in 266 TEVAR patients, and they classified spinal cord magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings into three types: focal (asymmetrical focal high intensity on axial T2-weighted images involving two or fewer segments of the spinal cord), sporadic (asymmetrical multiple high intensity on axial T2-weighted images involving more than three segments of the spinal cord, shown on Fig. 3), and diffuse (symmetrical high intensity on axial T2-weighted images). In their series, based on microscopic examination of the anterior spinal artery and its branches from autopsy of four patients with SCI, they attributed sporadic and focal MRI findings to atheroembolism, while diffuse findings were attributed to hemodynamic instability.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Pattern of spinal cord damage in thoracic endovascular aortic repair on magnetic resonance imaging (sporadic-type findings): asymmetrical multiple high intensity on axial T2-weighted images involving more than three segments of vertebra. Infarction is shaded on the illustration. (Used with permission from: Tanaka H, Minatoya K, Matsuda H, et al. Embolism is emerging as a major cause of spinal cord injury after descending and thoracoabdominal aortic repair with a contemporary approach: magnetic resonance findings of spinal cord injury. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 2014; 19: 205-10).35

Full size image

Risk factors for SCI after TEVAR

Multiple risk factors for the development of SCI after TEVAR have been identified and can be divided into patient and surgical procedure risk factors (Table 1). Patient risk factors include advanced age (> 70 years old),6 perioperative hypotension (e.g., mean arterial blood pressure < 70 mmHg),36,37,38 renal insufficiency (creatinine > 132 µMol·L−1),4,6,39 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),6 hypertension,6 and degenerative aneurysms compared with non-aneurysm pathologies.40 Renal insufficiency has been postulated as a marker of widespread peripheral atherosclerotic disease, which suggests that such patients may preoperatively have a compromised collateral network of blood supply to the spinal cord. On the other hand, the exact underlying mechanism of COPD as a risk factor for SCI is not fully understood.

Table 1 Risks factors for spinal cord ischemia after TEVAR
Full size table

Surgical risk factors include increased urgency of the procedure,41 large extent of aortic coverage,6,38,42,43,44 left subclavian artery coverage,39 coverage of hypogastric arteries,36,40 the use of three or more stents,39 extended duration of the procedure,36 and increased blood loss.40 The extent of aortic coverage is a particularly important surgical risk factor.6,38,42,43,44 Indeed, after reviewing 326 TEVAR patients, Feezor et al.44 concluded that the risk of SCI is increased by 30% for every 2 cm of additional thoracic aortic coverage. Amabile et al. 43 showed that aortic coverage > 205 mm is associated with an increased risk of SCI, and that the length of the thoracic coverage distal to the celiac artery is also an important risk factor.

The vascular territories providing blood supply to the spinal cord are the left subclavian, intercostal, lumbar, and hypogastric territories. In a prospective observational single-centre study of 63 TEVAR patients, Czerny et al. 45 showed a direct correlation between coverage of two or more of these vascular territories (positive predictive value, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24 to 0.91; P = 0.005) and development of symptomatic SCI, especially when combined with prolonged intraoperative hypotension. They also showed strong agreement between the derived results when they applied them to the data from the multicentre European Registry on Endovascular Aortic Repair Complications cohort.45 In addition, Martin et al. 46 retrospectively reviewed 261 TEVAR patients and reported that 18 of the 27 (67%) SCI patients in their cohort had a history of either repaired or unrepaired abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (odds ratio [OR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.56 to 8.33; P = 0.003). This finding has also been shown in other studies.38,39,47 The reason for the increased risk with prior repaired AAA is likely due to the compromise of the pelvic and hypogastric collateral blood supply to the spinal cord.

Role of the left subclavian artery in SCI

The left subclavian artery provides blood supply to the brain and spinal cord via the left vertebral artery. In doing so, it contributes to the blood supplying the posterior aspect of the circle of Willis via the basilar artery (formed by the union of the left and right vertebral arteries). The left vertebral artery also provides one of the two branches that feed the anterior spinal artery (Fig. 4).48 In addition, the thyrocervical trunk arising from the left subclavian artery supplies the cervical spinal cord through anterior and posterior radiculomedullary arteries (Fig. 4).49 More than 40% of patients undergoing TEVAR require intentional coverage of the left subclavian artery due to the close proximity of thoracic aortic pathology.50 Results of a meta-analysis by Rizvi et al. have shown that coverage of the left subclavian artery increases the risk of vertebrobasilar stroke and arm ischemia51 (OR, 10.8; CI, 3.2 to 36.7; I2 = 0% for stroke) and (OR, 47.7; CI, 9.9 to 229.3; I2 = 72% for arm ischemia). A more recent meta-analysis by Waterford et al. has shown similar results.52 They showed that the overall stroke rate after left subclavian coverage was higher when compared with TEVAR procedures performed distal to the subclavian origin (7.4% vs 4.0%, respectively; P < 0.0001).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Network of vascular collaterals to the spinal cord: subclavian, hypogastric, intercostal and lumbar arteries. (Used with permission from: Amato AC, Stolf NA. Anatomy of spinal blood supply. J Vasc Bras 2015; 14: 248-52)109

Full size image

There are multiple surgical options to maintain flow within the left subclavian artery when its coverage is planned during TEVAR (Fig. 5). Revascularization procedures include either transposition of the subclavian to the left common carotid artery or inserting a short bypass graft between the left subclavian and the left common carotid artery. Nevertheless, these revascularization procedures themselves carry a 10-12% risk of complications, including brachial plexus, vagus nerve, left recurrent laryngeal nerve and thoracic duct injuries, neck hematoma, subclavian dissection, and stroke.53,54 Newer endovascular techniques for preserving subclavian blood flow include the use of fenestrated/branched stent grafts, chimney and periscope grafts, sandwich techniques, or in situ fenestration techniques.55 Fenestrated or branched stents are custom pre-made stents designed to allow perfusion of the left subclavian artery. Chimney grafts are inserted into the subclavian artery parallel to the proximal wall of the aortic stent (Fig. 6). The use of a periscope graft is another technical variation of the chimney graft, but it is inserted through the distal part of the aorta resembling an inverted chimney (Fig. 7). Sandwich grafts are inserted between two aortic stents to avoid problems associated with gutters of the chimney grafts (Fig. 8). This technique is used with visceral and iliac vessels, but it was recently introduced to the aortic arch revascularization. In situ fenestration involves intraoperative creation of a fenestration (using a laser)56 to perfuse the left subclavian artery after aortic stent deployment. Nevertheless, the main concern about this technique is the interruption of the nitinol ring by the laser and the resulting lack of support at the edge of the fenestration; it would also affect the quality and durability of the stent.55

Fig. 5
figure 5

Surgical options for left subclavian artery management during TEVAR. When the operative plan requires covering the origin of the left subclavian artery (LSA), the LSA can be left without revascularization or can be perfused through extra-anatomical surgical procedures or, more recently, by endovascular techniques. Surgical revascularization is done either routinely or only for selected patients. TEVAR = thoracic endovascular aortic repair

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Chimney graft technique for left subclavian artery revascularization. A thoracic aortic endograft is excluding a descending thoracic aneurysm and covering the origin of the left subclavian artery (LSA); a chimney graft is inserted in the LSA parallel to the proximal wall of the aortic stent. The top left diagram shows a cross section of the aortic arch with the proximal end of the thoracic aortic stent and the LSA chimney graft in place. The middle left diagram shows a cross section of the aortic aneurysm with the thoracic stent excluding the aneurysaml sac. The bottom left diagram shows a cross section of the distal portion of the aortic stent sealing the descending thoracic aorta

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Periscope graft for left subclavian artery revascularization. A thoracic aortic endograft is excluding a descending thoracic aneurysm and covering the origin of the left subclavian artery (LSA); a periscope graft is inserted in the LSA through the distal part of the aorta. The top left diagram shows a cross section of the aortic arch sealed with the proximal end of the aortic stent. The bottom left diagram shows a cross section of the descending thoracic aorta with the thoracic stent and LSA periscope graft in place

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

Periscope Sandwich technique for left subclavian artery revascularization. Two thoracic aortic endografts are excluding a descending thoracic aneurysm with the proximal stent covering the origin of the left subclavian artery (LSA); a sandwich graft is inserted between two aortic stents. The top left diagram shows a cross section of the aortic arch sealed with the proximal end of the aortic stent. The bottom left diagram shows a cross section of the overlapping thoracic stents with the distal end of the sandwich graft between them

Full size image

The importance of routine preoperative subclavian revascularization has been debated, and some advocate performing such techniques only in selected high-risk patients. In the 2009 practice guidelines from the American Society of Vascular Surgery, routine preoperative left subclavian artery revascularization was suggested in elective TEVAR patients where subclavian coverage is anticipated to achieve a proximal seal. The guidelines also strongly recommended routine preoperative revascularization in selected patients with an anatomy that compromises perfusion to critical organs such as the brain and spinal cord.57 Rizvi et al. 51 performed a meta-analysis on 3,365 patients from 51 observational studies on the TEVAR procedure with or without left subclavian coverage. Results from eight of the studies showed a non-significant increase in the risk of SCI with left subclavian artery coverage (OR 2.69; 95% CI, 0.75 to 9.68; I2 = 40%). Recently, Patterson et al. 58 conducted a meta-analysis on 1,002 TEVAR patients from the Medtronic Thoracic Endovascular Registry (MOTHER) data derived from five clinical trials and one institutional series. The authors reported that subclavian coverage did not increase the risk of SCI (5%) compared with no such coverage (3%) (P = 0.16). They also showed a non-significant reduction in the incidence of SCI in patients who underwent left subclavian revascularization vs those who did not (4% vs 1.4%, respectively; P = 0.186). A more recent meta-analysis by Hajibandeh et al. 59 showed similar results on 1,161 patients from five observational studies. They did not show a significant difference in the rate of SCI between the subclavian revascularization and non-revascularization groups (2.7% vs 4.3%, respectively; P = 0.09). No updated guidelines regarding subclavian coverage have since been published.

Although debate continues on whether to perform routine preoperative subclavian revascularization, there are certain situations where selective revascularization is recommended.39,51,53,60,61,62,63,64,65 Indeed, most authors agree on certain absolute indications for preoperative revascularization, including prior left internal mammary artery coronary bypass, presence of a left-sided arteriovenous fistula for renal dialysis, and left-hand dominant patients. Relative indications include situations of dominant left vertebral artery, extensive aortic coverage, prior AAA repair, and occluded hypogastric artery. Postoperative indications include upper limb ischemia or vertebrobasilar insufficiency.51,53,66

Role of hypogastric arteries in SCI

The internal iliac artery (also known as the hypogastric artery) provides blood supply to the spinal cord via radicular lumbosacral arteries.48 Its sacrifice during open AAA repair or during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a risk factor for SCI in TEVAR. During EVAR, for example, unilateral coil embolization of the hypogastric artery is done to allow the endograft to anchor in the healthy external iliac artery, preventing hypogastric artery endoleak into the aortoiliac aneurysm. This unilateral embolization does not usually lead to complications due to a rich pelvic arterial network. Nevertheless, bilateral occlusion is associated with an increased risk of pelvic ischemia. Manifestations of pelvic ischemia include buttock claudication, erectile dysfunction, and to a lesser extent, SCI.67

Further compromise of hypogastric blood flow can occur during TEVAR when an iliac artery graft is used to serve as a vascular access conduit in patients with severe atherosclerosis of the iliofemoral arteries. This has been associated with a higher risk of SCI. For instance, Khoynezhad et al. 40 reported eight of 153 (4.3%) TEVAR patients with SCI, and five of the eight SCI patients required an iliac conduit for the procedure.

Clinical presentation of SCI after TEVAR

The clinical manifestations of SCI after TEVAR vary between immediate (at emergence from anesthesia) and delayed onset (> 24 hr after surgery), with the majority of cases (66%) being delayed onset.10 Spinal cord injury is a dynamic process, and the clinical presentation varies between paresis of one limb to full paraplegia, with or without autonomic dysfunction. These manifestations may be either transient (with partial or full recovery) or permanent (with no regression).5,68 Mehmedagic et al. 69 conducted mid-term follow-up on 29 patients with inhospital transient neurological deficits and documented full recovery of these deficits before discharge. They reported a permanent, though less-severe form of SCI in a subset of these patients, which was overlooked, reflecting the importance of transient paresis on patient long-term quality of life.

Autonomic dysfunction

Three spinal cord elements are involved in cardiovascular function: the descending vasomotor pathways, sympathetic preganglionic neurons, and spinal afferents.70 Cardiovascular dysfunction is common after SCI. Once SCI occurs, it is understood that there is damage to the motor and sensory neurons as well as to the descending pathways that are involved in the autonomic control of the cardiovascular system. This can lead to hypotension and bradycardia (i.e., spinal shock).70,71 In a subset of their delayed paralysis patients, Cheung et al.72 showed that the recovery of neurological function was associated with a decrease in the required dose of vasopressors. This might be attributed to the recovery of the autonomic dysfunction associated with the resolution of the SCI. This explains that hypotension can not only exacerbate SCI but can also serve as a potential indicator of the early onset of SCI when the autonomic system is affected. The relationship between hypotension secondary to ischemic spinal cord autonomic dysfunction and paralysis in TEVAR affords a potential opportunity for further investigation.

Spinal cord monitoring during TEVAR

Monitoring spinal cord function during TEVAR can assist in detecting pathologically relevant changes in the functional integrity of neuronal pathways. Furthermore, it has the potential to direct clinicians to the need for intraoperative intervention. That said, few centres report performing intraoperative spinal cord neuromonitoring during TEVAR. In addition to the costs associated with the necessary equipment, its relatively low rate of use compared with open procedures can be attributed to the lack of aortic cross-clamping, the relatively short duration of the procedure, the requirement for expert interpretation, and the often delayed nature of paralysis. Despite evidence-based guidelines suggesting a benefit to intraoperative spinal cord monitoring in spine surgery,73 the role of neuromonitoring in TEVAR is still evolving. The latest American Heart Association guidelines suggest considering neurophysiological monitoring of the spinal cord during both open TAAA repair and TEVAR for prevention and/or treatment of SCI. Nevertheless, the level of evidence is only class IIb—i.e., usefulness or efficacy is less well established by evidence/opinion.7 Additional studies are needed to examine the full potential of neuromonitoring in the diagnosis and prevention of SCI and paralysis in TEVAR.

Motor- and sensory-evoked potentials

Motor-evoked potential (MEP) monitoring is used to evaluate the descending spinal pathways, while somatosensory-evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring evaluates the ascending pathways. Hence, they can be considered useful tools in the diagnosis and management of SCI during TEVAR.74 Weigang et al.74 reported loss or changes in the SSEP and MEP in 11/31 (35%) patients undergoing TEVAR. They described recovery of these changes in ten of the 11 (91%) patients after they intervened by increasing the blood pressure and draining CSF. Nevertheless, the remaining patient did not respond to these intraoperative interventions and, interestingly, did not have any postoperative neurological deficits (i.e., false positive). It is worth mentioning that they also reported that one patient with delayed paresis had intraoperative MEPs and SSEPs that were unchanged (i.e., false negative). Similarly, Schurink et al. 75 reported a > 50% reduction in MEPs in two of ten (20%) patients undergoing TEVAR. In those two patients with MEP reductions, the procedure was carried out in stages to minimize the risk of SCI by allowing sufficient time for the collateral blood supply network to adapt. One of the other eight patients without MEP changes had temporary right lower leg paresis. Recently, Banga et al.76 observed MEP and/or SSEP changes in 31/49 (63%) TEVAR patients. The changes were restored to baseline in 12 patients after intervention—i.e., CSF drainage and blood pressure elevation. After intervention and restoration of lower limb blood flow in 18 of their other patients, the overall rate of SCI was 6% (three patients). The intraoperative changes in evoked potentials could not be restored in the remaining patient who presented with immediate paralysis. The other two patients presented with delayed SCI.

Thus, the use of monitoring evoked potentials during TEVAR is useful in the detection of SCI. Nevertheless, if no interventions were performed, it is not clear if patients with observed evoked potentials would actually manifest with postoperative SCI. One limitation of monitoring evoked potentials is the inability to differentiate mild from severe SCI. In addition, the vascular access needed for the introduction of the stent during TEVAR may result in leg ischemia, limiting the use of SSEP and MEP monitoring from the ipsilateral leg.77 For these reasons, the current available literature does not appear to support its routine use.

Effect of anesthesia on evoked potentials

During general anesthesia, volatile anesthetics affect the cortical waveforms by increasing cortical latency and decreasing SSEP amplitude. Therefore, for practical purpose, volatile anesthetics should be kept at no more than half the minimum anesthetic concentration (MAC).78,79 Isoflurane at concentrations of 0.75 and 1.0 MAC produces good MEP responses in only 61% and 8% of the patients, respectively, after multipulse transcranial electrical stimulation.80,81,82 Similarly, sevoflurane at 0.5 and 0.75 MAC produces adequate responses in only 55% and 10% of the patients, respectively, when using dual-pulse electrical stimuli. Although propofol suppresses the alpha motor neuron in the grey matter of the spinal cord, serum concentrations at ≤ 1 μg·mL−1 generally allow a MEP response in most patients. In addition, opioids used at low dose in continuous infusions do not generally affect MEP responses. The use of neuromuscular blocking agents should be closely monitored to provide muscle relaxation and an adequate MEP response. Single twitch height (T1) of 20-50% of baseline can achieve this result. Thus, the preferable anesthetic protocol during evoked potential neuromonitoring should lean heavily towards total intravenous anesthesia (e.g., with propofol and remifentanil) with only low concentrations of volatile agents, if any.83

Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS)

The use of NIRS in TEVAR in an attempt to detect SCI was first reported in 2011.84 In this report, NIRS optodes were placed over the surface of the thoracic and lumbar paraspinous muscles of two patients. This procedure provided real-time measurement of blood oxygen saturation in the paraspinous collateral network, which shows a strong direct association with spinal cord microcirculation. After deployment of a thoracic aortic stent, the first patient showed a decrease in the spinal cord NIRS signal, which improved after augmenting MAP and draining CSF. The second patient developed SCI, which was consistent with the reduction in the NIRS signal that did not recover after any intervention. von Aspern et al. 85 used NIRS in seven juvenile pigs to compare measurements of paravertebral muscle oxygenation with direct measurements of the spinal cord oxygenation and microcirculatory flow by laser Doppler flowmetry. There was a significant positive correlation (r = 0.51 to 0.52; P < 0.001) between the measurements of both devices, and there was no significant difference between lumbar paraspinous muscle oxygenation and direct spinal cord oxygenation (P = 0.30). Thus, at least in theory, NIRS monitoring of the paraspinous muscles may indirectly reflect oxygenation in the spinal cord. Nevertheless, this technique has yet to be validated clinically.3,85,86

Spinal cord neuroprotective strategies in TEVAR

Spinal cord protection during TEVAR requires a team approach during the perioperative period, including input from the anesthesiologists, surgeons, and ICU team members. Anesthesiologists are responsible for optimizing spinal cord perfusion throughout the procedure. Surgeons have to make perioperative decisions regarding staging of the procedure and management of the left subclavian and hypogastric arteries. Other new surgical techniques of minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization and TASP have also been introduced to minimize the risk of SCI (Table 2).

Table 2 Neuroprotective strategies for spinal cord during TEVAR
Full size table

Perioperative anesthetic management

General measures

Important measures for spinal cord protection during TEVAR include ensuring adequate oxygenation and perfusion by maintaining a normal cardiac index and adequate hemoglobin—though the precise limits are not well defined.10,87 Nevertheless, it is important to determine the best method for increasing the cardiac index. The detrimental effects of increasing cardiac index through expansion of blood volume include a higher CVP (potentially detrimental to spinal cord blood flow, as discussed below) and tissue edema (including spinal cord tissues), while augmentation of cardiac output with adrenergic drugs may have potential negative effects at the microcirculatory level of the spinal cord.

Blood pressure management and spinal cord perfusion pressure

Spinal cord perfusion pressure is the difference between mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and either CSF pressure or CVP, whichever is greater.31 General guidelines for minimizing SCI include increasing MAP (i.e., > 90 mmHg) and draining CSF (≤ 10 mmHg) in order to maintain spinal cord perfusion pressure at levels > 80 mmHg.8,74 Recently, the European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgeons published a position paper about spinal cord protection in TEVAR in which they recommended increasing blood pressure in patients with SCI to higher than the individual’s preoperative MAP—i.e., and at least 80 mmHg.8 Nevertheless, the strength of the provided evidence regarding blood pressure management and CSF drainage in the treatment of SCI is generally limited to expert opinion (i.e., level IIaC evidence) (Table 3).8

Table 3 Indications for the use of CSF drain in TEVAR
Full size table

Izumi et al.88 described the effect of maintaining high MAP on spinal cord protection in a rabbit model of aortic cross-clamping by comparing high and low blood pressure animal groups with a control group. Mean (standard deviation) arterial blood pressure during ischemia was controlled at 121.9 (2.8), 50.8 (4.3), and 82.3 (10.7) mmHg in high blood pressure, low blood pressure, and control groups, respectively. They observed higher spinal cord blood flow, lower markers of oxidative stress, faster recovery of transcranial MEPs, and less histological damage of the motor neurons in the animal group treated with higher MAPs. In addition, in an experimental rat model of spinal cord ischemia/reperfusion, Lu et al. 89 showed that hypovolemia-induced hypotension led to more neurological dysfunction, more extensive neuronal necrosis, but less apoptotic neuronal death when compared with the normotensive control group. Although there is no direct experimental evidence on the effect of blood pressure management in endovascular repair for spinal cord protection, the clinical experience in the literature shows that maintaining spinal cord perfusion pressures > 80 mmHg (by increasing the MAP and draining the CSF) after the deployment of the aortic stent is beneficial in the prevention and management of SCI and paralysis. In patients who go on to develop postoperative SCI, a MAP > 90 mmHg should be targeted in an attempt to reverse the weakness. Vasopressors used to attain increased MAP goals should be weaned slowly over the subsequent 24–48 hr after improvement of the weakness. Such high levels of blood pressure are generally tolerated by TEVAR patients.10,87

Hypothermia

Mild passive hypothermia (32-35 °C) may have a role in neuroprotection of the spinal cord, though it has not been studied in a rigorous fashion.87,90 Unlike open TAAA surgical repair, moderate hypothermia is not a current practice in TEVAR as it generally requires a more invasive approach (e.g., intravascular cooling systems) in order to be induced for a minimally invasive surgery.91 Furthermore, evidence suggests that deeper levels of hypothermia affect the performance of nitinol-based endovascular grafts in vitro by decreasing the radial expansive force and thus the deployed diameter. This could have an important clinical impact on graft deformation, migration, and endoleak.92

Cerebrospinal fluid drainage

Indications for CSF drainage

In 2010, the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation guidelines recommended CSF drainage for TAAA open and endovascular repair. Nevertheless, the document provided references only for the open repair.7 In addition, in 2015, the European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgeons recommended that CSF drainage should be considered in patients undergoing TEVAR for prevention and treatment of SCI, though with only level IIaC evidence (i.e., mostly expert opinion).8 In a randomized-controlled trial by Coselli et al. for open TAAA repair,93 they showed that CSF drainage significantly reduced the incidence of paraplegia/paraparesis [nine of 69 patients (13%) in the control group without CSF drainage vs two of 76 patients (2.6%) receiving CSF drainage; P = 0.03]. Similar high-quality data are not available for TEVAR. Hence, the indications and protocols for use of CSF drainage during TEVAR vary widely between institutions across the USA and around the globe.

Wong et al.11 recently conducted a systematic review involving 4,936 patients to address the issue of SCI and CSF drainage after TEVAR; however, they were unable to clarify the role of prophylactic CSF drainage due to the lack of randomized-controlled trials. Uchida also analyzed the literature from 1999 to 2013 on paraplegia/paraparesis after endovascular repair of thoracic aortic pathology. Based on his review, Uchida developed indications for CSF drainage in TEVAR; however, these indications need to be validated in prospective randomized-controlled trials (Table 3).14 In the absence of any pharmacological intervention to protect against SCI, physicians’ options are generally limited to CSF drainage and blood pressure management.

There has been recent debate on the value of introducing postoperative CSF drainage in those patients presenting with delayed paralysis. In fact, Kakinohana questioned the role of the CSF drain in the prevention of delayed paralysis after TEVAR and suggested that its use in this setting cannot be fully justified as the mechanism of the delayed paraplegia is not completely understood.10

Timing of the CSF drain placement

The timing of CSF drain placement also differs among institutions. Some groups recommend placement of the CSF drain the day before surgery so that any complications from drain placement, should they arise, can be recognized early.94 Other groups recommend insertion on the day of the surgery, in part to reduce hospital bed utilization and cost.90 DeSart et al. reviewed a cohort of 607 TEVAR patients where 57 (9.4%) developed some degree of SCI. Fifty-four (95%) of these received a CSF drain at some point in their care, and 31 (54%) received it postoperatively. They concluded that the timing of CSF placement did not have a major impact on post-discharge functional impairment or long-term mortality.5 Thus, the optimal timing of CSF drain placement remains uncertain.

In patients who go on to develop some degree of SCI, the window for the benefits of adding CSF drain placement to their therapy is also important as the reversal of any deficits likely closes within one to two hours of onset. Bobadilla et al. 90 performed a retrospective study of 94 TEVAR patients in whom they routinely inserted a CSF drain (both elective and emergent). In their series, only one patient suffered from delayed paralysis. Their proactive protocol reduced the time needed for interventions by allowing for immediate CSF drainage and induced hypertension as soon as paralysis was detected. This routine placement avoids the delay of CSF drain placement in patients with sudden onset of postoperative paralysis. An additional benefit to routine CSF drain placement includes increasing the efficacy of induced hypertension for the treatment of postoperative paralysis (to off-load CSF volume and reduce CSF pressure efficiently). Induced hypertension without the aid of a CSF drain has been speculated to be harmful due to potential formation of edema in the spinal cord.95

Another concern for postoperative drain insertion is the development of post-stent coagulopathy. The aortic stent excludes the aneurysmal sac from the blood flow, causing the blood inside the sac to thrombose. This consumes platelets and coagulation factors through activation of coagulation cascades (with reduction in fibrinogen and plasminogen levels as well as prothrombin activity) and fibrinolysis (with increases in fibrin degradation products and D-dimer levels). In studies by Shimazaki et al. 96 and Monaco et al.,97 these changes were shown on patients with endovascular thoracic aortic aneurysm and aortic dissection repair. Although both studies concluded that these changes do not affect patients’ outcome, anesthesiologists need to be aware of these mechanisms that may impact the safety of postoperative CSF drain insertion.

Notwithstanding the above potential coagulation issues, an alternate approach for timing CSF drain insertion is the “wait and see” methodology, which is much easier to employ in TEVAR (compared with open TAAA repair), as fast-track anesthetic techniques usually allow for early neurologic examination. That said, institutions that implement this approach must have standardized ICU procedures that employ structured and regular neurologic exams, including increased vigilance by the nurse/intensivist along with the avoidance of unnecessary sedation. Institutions should also have clinical infrastructure available to place a CSF drain rapidly if delayed SCI should occur. Acher et al. 2 reviewed 22 studies in the literature representing the current practice of CSF drainage in TEVAR. They concluded that, despite the wide variation in CSF drainage management among different institutions, rates of SCI remain in the range of 1-10%, whether the surgeon made the decision to insert the drain or institutional criteria defined the management protocol. In addition, timing of CSF drainage insertion (intraoperatively vs postoperatively) did not show differences in clinical outcomes.

Cerebrospinal fluid drain complications

Inherent in all invasive procedures (including CSF drain placement) are their associated complications. A number of studies have outlined the various CSF drain-related complications. Hanna et al.98 reported the complications of CSF drain placement in 81 TEVAR patients. Nine patients (11.1%) experienced minor lumbar drain complications, including spinal headache, bleeding at the puncture site, persistent CSF leak, or clinically insignificant subdural hematoma. On the other hand, Arnaoutakis et al.94 reported no complications from spinal drain placement in 48 patients. The reduction of complications in the Arnaoutakis et al. 94 series may have been due to the timing of catheter placement (24 hr prior to the TEVAR) as well as strict anticoagulation management around insertion and removal time. That is, they discontinued clopidogrel seven to ten days before the procedure and subcutaneous heparin 12 hr before drain insertion. The most recent American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine guidelines on insertion of intrathecal catheters recommend stopping clopidogrel at least seven days before the procedure, stopping intravenous heparin for at least four hours, and stopping subcutaneous heparin for eight to ten hours before the procedure. In individuals using acetylsalicylic acid (for secondary prophylaxis), the guidelines recommend weighing the risk of bleeding against the cardiovascular risks of stopping acetylsalicylic acid.99 The platelet threshold for drain insertion is recommended to be ≥ 100·103·µL−1, international normalized ratio < 1.3, and a normal activated partial thromboplastin time.100 In addition to the role of suboptimal coagulation status, clinically significant subdural hematoma can also be attributed to excessive CSF drainage—i.e., at rates > 15-20 mL·hr−1.100

In addition to concerns about CSF drain complications, some physicians think that CSF drainage prevents early mobilization, requires trained staff, and increases ICU length of stay for at least 48 hr (i.e., the recommended period for postoperative drainage). Zipfel et al.34 reported that 66% of their TEVAR patients did not require ICU care or required ICU care for < 24 hr. They were able to achieve this result because they did not use a CSF drain in their patients.

Newer surgical techniques for prevention of SCI

Several newer surgical techniques are now undergoing evaluation as adjuncts for the prevention of SCI. These include performing the procedure in stages, the use of MISACE, and allowing TASP (Table 2).101,102,103

Staging

In cases with planned coverage of a long segment (i.e., > 30 cm) of the aorta in extended thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm, a two-stage operation can be considered to decrease the risk of SCI.14 Performing the aortic coverage in stages can be intentional or unintentional. Unintentional staging occurs in patients with a history of prior open or endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and presenting with an extension of their aneurysmal disease that requires TEVAR. Intentional staging repair involves initial placement of a thoracic aortic endograft covering the aorta from the proximal seal zone to just above the level of the most proximal visceral branch vessels. This procedure can then be followed by distal stent placement for distal seal after an interval of two to three months.101

Minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization

Luehr et al. 104 individually embolized the segmental arteries in a porcine model through an endovascular technique known as minimally invasive segmental artery coil embolization (MISACE). Their experimental work showed that this technique essentially “preconditions” the collateral vascular network to ischemia by inducing arteriogenesis and improving vascularity of the spinal cord before TEVAR. Etz et al. 102 conducted a novel trial for this technique on two patients with a large thoracic aortic aneurysm. One patient underwent TEVAR while the other patient underwent open surgical repair. The segmental arteries were occluded 4–8 weeks before the aneurysm repair in both patients; neither of them developed SCI. Nevertheless, in an editorial accompanying this publication, the author questioned the reproducibility of this complex technique of endovascular embolization of the segmental arteries on a larger scale of patients, especially in patients with tortuous anatomy or with the presence of thrombus in the aneurysm sac.105

In 2017, A randomized-controlled clinical open-label trial is starting in 20 centres in Europe and in two centres in the USA for Paraplegia Prevention in Aortic Aneurysm Repair with MISACE (PAPA-ARTIS) (Project ID: 733203, as registered in the Community Research and Development Information Service). This trial should shed new light on how many segmental arteries need to be coiled in order to precondition the collateral network as well as on the ideal time interval between the MISACE procedure and TEVAR. Nevertheless, there are concerns regarding MISACE itself causing SCI, in addition to the concerns arising from artificially augmenting the blood pressure in a patient with an unrepaired aortic aneurysm to reverse emergent paralysis. Finally, it is highly speculative to translate the concept of arteriogenesis concluded from studies on juvenile large animals to humans with comorbid disease and advanced pathologies.

Temporary aneurysm sac perfusion (TASP)

The TASP surgical technique for prevention of SCI is performed by establishing an endoleak into the covered aneurysm with a branched endograft that has a side branch that will ultimately be used to perfuse a major splanchnic vessel during the first part of a staged procedure. This is followed by a second procedure after a one- to three-month interval to complete the exclusion of the endobranch (with a stent that bridges the TEVAR stent to the intended visceral vessel) feeding the aneurysm sac.103,106 Use of this technique showed a reduction in the rate of permanent paralysis. Kasprzak et al. 103 tested the feasibility of this technique in a prospective study on 83 TEVAR patients (40 patients with TASP vs 43 patients without TASP). The incidence of SCI was significantly reduced in the TASP group (5% vs 21%, respectively; P = 0.03). Nevertheless, the incidence of subsequent endoleak, potential risk of aortic rupture (occurring in the time between the two stages), and higher rate of temporary paraparesis and paresthesia (30%) (as reported by Kasprzak et al.)103 necessitate further investigation of this technique.

Implantation sequence rearrangement for branched/fenestrated stents

The final step in the insertion of branched/fenestrated stents is implantation of the bifurcated body and iliac limbs through large sheaths connected to the femoral/iliac arteries. These sheaths block the blood flow to the pelvis and lower limbs and subsequently the collateral circulation to the spinal cord. Some groups have recently changed their implantation sequence by implanting the bifurcated body and iliac limbs and then withdrawing these large sheaths earlier in the procedure, after deployment of the central stent. This is done in order to restore the blood flow to the femoral and iliac arteries and, hence, to reduce the incidence of SCI.107,108

Conclusion

Spinal cord injury and paralysis continue to be challenging complications after TEVAR. The incidence of SCI after TEVAR remains relatively high despite recent advances in surgical techniques. Anesthesiologists have a major role in spinal cord protection by careful management of the hemodynamics and institution of protocols for CSF drainage. Newer surgical techniques (i.e., MISACE and TASP) are currently under investigation in an attempt to reduce this dreadful complication. Further preclinical and clinical research is needed to discover novel neuroprotective strategies for protection and treatment of SCI and paralysis following TEVAR.