1 / 6

Ali Shahriari The Indiana Heart Hospital Indianapolis, IN

Utilization of Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring During TEVAR: Can the Incidence of Spinal Cord Injury Be Reduced?. Ali Shahriari The Indiana Heart Hospital Indianapolis, IN. Background.

judah
Download Presentation

Ali Shahriari The Indiana Heart Hospital Indianapolis, IN

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Utilization of Motor Evoked Potential Monitoring During TEVAR: Can the Incidence of Spinal Cord Injury Be Reduced? Ali Shahriari The Indiana Heart Hospital Indianapolis, IN

  2. Background To review the benefits of motor evoked potential (MEP) monitoring in reducing the risk of spinal cord injury (SCI) during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

  3. Methods • We performed a retrospective study using a prospective database of all patients undergoing elective TEVAR at our institution. • All patients underwent intraoperative MEP monitoring. • The incidence of SCI and the benefit of using intraoperativeMEP’s was analyzed.

  4. Results • Between December 2008 and December 2011, 105 elective TEVARs were performed in our institution. • All procedures were performed under general anesthesia with intraoperative MEP monitoring. • Sixty- two (59%) patients underwent concomitant performance of left carotid-subclavian bypass.

  5. Results • Intraoperative MEPs showed a significant change in 6 cases (5.7%), all of which recovered with hemodynamic management and in 2 cases (1.9%) by using a CSF drain. • There were no instances of paraplegia or paralysis. Three patients (2.9%) had a type I endoleak and 6 (5.7%) had a type II endoleak. • The 30-day mortality was 0.

  6. Conclusion • Utilization of MEPs changed the management in 5.7% of our patients and was instrumental in preventing SCI in these patients. • Using MEPs has allowed us to use CSF drains on a selective basis rather than routine.

More Related