General Anesthesia Versus Local Anesthesia in Carotid Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The choice of anesthetic technique in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been controversial. This study compared the outcomes of general anesthesia (GA) and local anesthesia (LA) in CEA. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. SETTING: Hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients undergoing CEA with either LA or GA. INTERVENTIONS: The effects of GA and LA on CEA outcomes were compared. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: PubMed, OVID, Scopus, and Embase were searched to June 2018. Thirty-one studies with 152,376 patients were analyzed. A random effect model was used, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 and chi-square tests. LA was associated with shorter surgical time (weighted mean difference -9.15 min [-15.55 to -2.75]; p = 0.005) and less stroke (odds ratio [OR] 0.76 [0.62-0.92]; p = 0.006), cardiac complications (OR 0.59 [0.47-0.73]; p < 0.00001), and in-hospital mortality (OR 0.72 [0.59-0.90]; p = 0.003). Transient neurologic deficit rates were similar (OR 0.69 [0.46-1.04]; p = 0.07). Heterogeneity was significant for surgical time (I2 = 0.99, chi-square = 1,336.04; p < 0.00001), transient neurologic deficit (I2 = 0.41, chi-square = 28.81; p = 0.04), and cardiac complications (I2 = 0.42, chi-square = 43.32; p = 0.01) but not for stroke (I2 = 0.22, chi-square = 30.72; p = 0.16) and mortality (I2 = 0.00, chi-square = 21.69; p = 0.65). Randomized controlled trial subgroup analysis was performed, and all the aforementioned variables were not significantly different or heterogenous. CONCLUSION: The results from this study showed no inferiority of using LA to GA in patients undergoing CEA. Future investigations should be reported more systematically, preferably with randomization or propensity-matched analysis, and thus registries will facilitate investigation of this subject. Anesthetic choice in CEA should be individualized and encouraged where applicable.

Aortic valve repair or replacement in patients with aortic regurgitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare clinical outcomes between aortic valve repair and replacement in patients with aortic regurgitation. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all published data comparing clinical outcomes of aortic valve repair vs replacement. Database searched from inception to November 2018. RESULTS: A total of 1071 patients were analyzed in eight articles. Mean age was similar in both groups of patients (47.2 ± 12.8 vs 48.3 ± 12.7 years, P = 0.83, aortic valve repair and replacement, respectively). The preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was better in the repair group (56.7% ± 4.8 vs 53.3% ± 4.2, P = 0.005). The rate of moderate-to-severe regurgitation and bicuspid aortic valve were similar in both cohorts (81% vs 78%, P = 0.90% and 58% vs 55%, P = 0.46). In-hospital and 1-year mortality was lower in repair cohort, although not reaching statistical significance (1.3% vs 3.6%, P = 0.12; 5.9% vs 9.3%, P = 0.77). Reoperation rate was higher in repair patients at 1 year (8.8% vs 3.7%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Aortic valve repair offers comparable perioperative outcomes to aortic valve replacement in aortic regurgitation patients at the expense of higher late reintervention rate. Larger trials with long-term follow-up are required to confirm the long-term benefits of aortic valve repair.