Key result
Retrograde venous spinal cord perfusion did not reduce neurologic injury during aortic cross-clamping in a canine model, but was technically feasible in 5 human patients.
Why the study?
Does retrograde venous spinal cord perfusion combined with CSFD and DAP prevent neurologic injury during aortic cross-clamping?
RCT (n=25)
Randomized to four treatment groups
No
Does retrograde venous spinal cord perfusion combined with CSFD and DAP prevent neurologic injury during aortic cross-clamping?
p-value: p=<0.0001
Retrograde venous spinal cord perfusion is clinically feasible during aortic cross-clamping but does not appear to reduce neurologic injury beyond the benefits of distal aortic perfusion and cerebrospinal fluid drainage.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated retrograde venous spinal cord perfusion (RVP), with the established adjuncts cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD), and distal aortic perfusion (DAP) in the canine model. We then examined the clinical feasibility of RVP, DAP, and CSFD. DESIGN: Canine study: Twenty dogs were randomized to four treatment groups. All animals underwent 60 min of complete aortic cross-clamp. Group 1 was the control and received only aortic cross-clamp; group 2 DAP and CSFD; group 3 DAP, CSFD, and RVP; and group 4 CSFD plus RVP. Human study: Five patients underwent aortic graft replacement of the descending or thoracoabdominal aorta, while receiving CSFD, DAP, and RVP. RESULTS: Canine study: All animals in groups 1 and 4 awoke paralyzed. One animal each in groups 2 and 3 were paraparetic, with the remaining dogs neurologically intact. Groups 2 and 3 differed from groups 1 and 4 at p < 0.0001. Human study: No mortality or permanent complications were observed in this group. CONCLUSION: While RVP did not reduce neurologic injury, neither did it increase morbidity. In humans the method is technically feasible and free from major problems. Further animal studies and randomized trials are underway at our center.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Winnerkvist et al. (2002) conducted an RCT in Aortic cross-clamping (n=25). Retrograde venous spinal cord perfusion (RVP) vs. Control (aortic cross-clamp only), distal aortic perfusion (DAP), and cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) was evaluated on Neurologic injury (paralysis or paraparesis) (p=<0.0001). Retrograde venous spinal cord perfusion did not reduce neurologic injury during aortic cross-clamping in a canine model, but was technically feasible in 5 human patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: