Regional Anesthesia is Associated with Improved Mortality and Morbidity in Patients with Congestive Heart Failure Undergoing Lower Extremity Amputation.

BACKGROUND: While existing literature reports variable results of general anesthesia (GA) and regional anesthesia (RA) in patients undergoing lower extremity amputation (LEA), the effect of RA on patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) has not been explored. This study aims to assess whether the choice of anesthesia plays a role in influencing outcomes within this vulnerable population. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program files between 2005 and 2022, all patients receiving LEA were identified, and the subset of patients with CHF was included. Patient characteristics and 30-day outcomes were compared using χ2 or Fischer's exact test as appropriate for categorical variables and the independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate for continuous variables. The association between anesthesia modality and post-operative outcomes was studied using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 5,831 patients (4,779 undergoing GA, 1,052 undergoing RA) with a diagnosis of CHF undergoing LEA were identified. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, RA was associated with lower mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.97), pneumonia (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58-0.99), septic shock (aOR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.88), post-operative blood transfusion (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.97), and 30-day readmission (aOR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that RA for LEA in patients with CHF is associated with decreased morbidity and mortality compared to GA. While furthermore research is needed to confirm this association, RA should be at least considered in CHF patients undergoing LEA when feasible.

In Patients with Heart Failure Undergoing Carotid Endarterectomy, Locoregional Anesthesia is Not Associated with Decreased Mortality, Stroke, or Myocardial Infarction Compared to General Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: While existing literature reports no benefit of locoregional anesthesia (LRA) over general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA), the effect of LRA on patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) has not been explored. This study aims to assess whether the choice of anesthesia plays a role in influencing outcomes within this population. METHODS: Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) files between 2005 and 2022 and the procedural targeted ACS-NSQIP database for CEA between 2011-2022, all patients receiving CEA were identified, and the subset of patients with CHF was included. Patient characteristics and 30-day outcomes were compared using χ2 or Fischer's exact test as appropriate for categorical variables and the independent t-test or Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate for continuous variables. Mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were compared between patients receiving GA and LRA using univariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3,040 patients (2,733 undergoing GA, 307 undergoing LRA) with a diagnosis of CHF undergoing CEA were identified. No difference in mortality (GA 3.1% vs. LRA 4.6%, P = 0.162), MI (GA 3.0% vs. LRA 2.3%, P = 0.478), stroke (2.4% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.805) or MACE (GA 7.4% vs. LRA 8.1%, P = 0.654) was observed. LRA patients had a significantly lower hospital stay compared to GA patients (1 day [interquartile range (IQR) 1-3] vs. 2 days [IQR 1-4], P < 0.001). Shunt was more commonly used in patients receiving GA (32.9% vs. 12.5%, P < 0.001) compared to LRA. CONCLUSIONS: While utilizing LRA compared to GA during CEA in patients with CHF is associated with a shorter hospital stay and less intraoperative shunting, the choice of anesthesia did not impact the outcomes of mortality, MI or stroke. Further research is needed to determine the effect of LRA on the outcomes of CEA among patients with different stages of heart failure.

Sedation versus general anesthesia on all-cause mortality in patients undergoing percutaneous procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The comparison between sedation and general anesthesia (GA) in terms of all-cause mortality remains a subject of ongoing debate. The primary objective of our study was to investigate the impact of GA and sedation on all-cause mortality in order to provide clarity on this controversial topic. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, incorporating cohort studies and RCTs about postoperative all-cause mortality. Comprehensive searches were performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, with the search period extending until February 28, 2023. Two independent reviewers extracted the relevant information, including the number of deaths, survivals, and risk effect values at various time points following surgery, and these data were subsequently pooled and analyzed using a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 58 studies were included in the analysis, with a majority focusing on endovascular surgery. The findings of our analysis indicated that, overall, and in most subgroup analyses, sedation exhibited superiority over GA in terms of in-hospital and 30-day mortality. However, no significant difference was observed in subgroup analyses specific to cerebrovascular surgery. About 90-day mortality, the majority of studies centered around cerebrovascular surgery. Although the overall pooled results showed a difference between sedation and GA, no distinction was observed between the pooled ORs and the subgroup analyses based on RCTs and matched cohort studies. For one-year all-cause mortality, all included studies focused on cardiac and macrovascular surgery. No difference was found between the HRs and the results derived from RCTs and matched cohort studies. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested a potential superiority of sedation over GA, particularly in the context of cardiac and macrovascular surgery, mitigating the risk of in-hospital and 30-day death. However, for the longer postoperative periods, this difference remains uncertain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023399151; registered 24 February 2023.

Long-term Survival after Volatile or Propofol General Anesthesia for Bladder Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective National Registry Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Prospective interventional trials and retrospective observational analyses provide conflicting evidence regarding the relationship between propofol versus inhaled volatile general anesthesia and long-term survival after cancer surgery. Specifically, bladder cancer surgery lacks prospective clinical trial evidence. METHODS: Data on bladder cancer surgery performed under general anesthesia between 2014 and 2021 from the National Quality Registry for Urinary Tract and Bladder Cancer and the Swedish Perioperative Registry were record-linked. Overall survival was compared between patients receiving propofol or inhaled volatile for anesthesia maintenance. The minimum clinically important difference was defined as a 5-percentage point difference in 5-yr survival. RESULTS: Of 7,571 subjects, 4,519 (59.7%) received an inhaled volatile anesthetic, and 3,052 (40.3%) received propofol for general anesthesia maintenance. The two groups were quite similar in most respects but differed in American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status and tumor stage. Propensity score matching was used to address treatment bias. Survival did not differ during follow-up (median, 45 months [interquartile range, 33 to 62 months]) in the full unmatched cohort nor after 1:1 propensity score matching (3,052 matched pairs). The Kaplan-Meier adjusted 5-yr survival rates in the matched cohort were 898 of 3,052, 67.5% (65.6 to 69.3%) for propofol and 852 of 3,052, 68.5% (66.7 to 70.4%) for inhaled volatile general anesthesia, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.15]; P = 0.332). A sensitivity analysis restricted to 1,766 propensity score-matched pairs of patients who received only one general anesthetic during the study period did not demonstrate a difference in survival; Kaplan-Meier adjusted 5-yr survival rates were 521 of 1,766, 67.1% (64.7 to 69.7%) and 482 of 1,766, 68.9% (66.5 to 71.4%) for propofol and inhaled volatile general anesthesia, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.23]; P = 0.139). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing bladder cancer surgery under general anesthesia, there was no statistically significant difference in long-term overall survival associated with the choice of propofol or an inhaled volatile maintenance.

Endovascular aneurysm repair under local anesthesia through bilateral percutaneous femoral access is a safe strategy to improve early outcomes and reduce hospital stay.

BACKGROUND: To estimate the impact of anesthetic conduct, alone and in combination with the type of femoral access, on early results after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: A retrospective multicenter analysis on patients undergoing elective standard EVAR at four academic centers was performed. Patients undergoing the procedure through either local or general anesthesia were compared. Comparative subanalyses of the two groups were performed for the type of femoral access to evaluate further impact on outcomes. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-four patients underwent elective standard EVAR, of which 207 (39.5%) under general anesthesia and 317 (60.5%) under local anesthesia. Patients who underwent general anesthesia had higher 30-day mortality rates (3.4% vs. 0.3%, P=0.005), as well as slightly worse 30-day major systemic complication rates (8.2% vs. 5.4%, P=0.195). There were no differences in terms of reinterventions (2.1% vs. 2.5%, P=0.768) and aneurysm-related mortality (0% vs. 0.4%, P=0.422) at one year. Total intervention times were significantly longer in the general anesthesia group (126 vs. 89 minutes, P=0.001), as well as the total length of hospital stay (7.6 vs. 5.3 days, P=0.007). At subanalyses, the combination of local anesthesia with bilateral percutaneous femoral access further improved 30-day outcomes and determined an additional reduction in total intervention times and ICU stays. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR performed under local anesthesia has a significantly better impact on early results when compared to general anesthesia. Combining percutaneous bilateral femoral access to local anesthesia reduced procedural times, ICU stays and consequently improved early results.

Sedation with Ketamine-Propofol in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Comparative Retrospective Study on General Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is used for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high risk for surgery. Since these patients are elderly and have comorbidities, their management is of great importance. OBJECTIVES: This retrospective study compares two anesthesia techniques during TAVI: sedation (ketamine and propofol) and general anesthesia. METHODS: Patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI during 2021 in our hospital were retrospectively screened. Demographic data, comorbidities, anesthesia management, complications, and mortality of the patients were obtained from the records. RESULTS: There were 137 patients treated with TAVI; 74 (54%) patients had sedation and 63 (46%) had general anesthesia. When the anesthesia management was evaluated, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the patients who received general anesthesia and sedation. After univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate factors having an impact on mortality, anemia (only in univariate analysis) in the whole study population was a statistically significant risk factor for mortality in patients undergoing TAVI (p<0.014). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in mortality in terms of anesthesia management. Anemia was a risk factor for mortality (only in univariate analysis) in the whole study population. We concluded that conscious sedation with ketamine and propofol is effective and safe for TAVI procedures compared to general anesthesia.

Method of Anesthesia and Perioperative Risk Factors, Maternal Anesthesia Complications, and Neonatal Mortality Following Cesarean Delivery in Africa: A Substudy of a 7-Day Prospective Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The African Surgical Outcomes Study (ASOS) found that maternal mortality following cesarean delivery in Africa is 50 times higher than in high-income countries, and associated with obstetric hemorrhage and anesthesia complications. Mothers who died were more likely to receive general anesthesia (GA). The associations between GA versus spinal anesthesia (SA) and preoperative risk factors, maternal anesthesia complications, and neonatal outcomes following cesarean delivery in Africa are unknown. METHODS: This is a secondary explanatory analysis of 3792 patients undergoing cesarean delivery in ASOS, a prospective observational cohort study, across 22 African countries. The primary aim was to estimate the association between preoperative risk factors and the outcome of the method of anesthesia delivered. Secondary aims were to estimate the association between the method of anesthesia and the outcomes (1) maternal intraoperative hypotension, (2) severe maternal anesthesia complications, and (3) neonatal mortality. Generalized linear mixed models adjusting for obstetric gravidity and gestation, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) category, urgency of surgery, maternal comorbidities, fetal distress, and level of anesthesia provider were used. RESULTS: Of 3709 patients, SA was performed in 2968 (80%) and GA in 741 (20%). Preoperative factors independently associated with GA for cesarean delivery were gestational age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.093; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.052-1.135), ASA categories III (aOR, 11.84; 95% CI, 2.93-46.31) and IV (aOR, 11.48; 95% CI, 2.93-44.93), eclampsia (aOR, 3.92; 95% CI, 2.18-7.06), placental abruption (aOR, 6.23; 95% CI, 3.36-11.54), and ruptured uterus (aOR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.36-9.63). SA was administered to 48 of 94 (51.1%) patients with eclampsia, 12 of 28 (42.9%) with cardiac disease, 14 of 19 (73.7%) with preoperative sepsis, 48 of 76 (63.2%) with antepartum hemorrhage, 30 of 55 (54.5%) with placenta previa, 33 of 78 (42.3%) with placental abruption, and 12 of 29 (41.4%) with a ruptured uterus. The composite maternal outcome "all anesthesia complications" was more frequent in GA than SA (9/741 [1.2%] vs 3/2968 [0.1%], P < .001). The unadjusted neonatal mortality was higher with GA than SA (65/662 [9.8%] vs 73/2669 [2.7%], P < .001). The adjusted analyses demonstrated no association between method of anesthesia and (1) intraoperative maternal hypotension and (2) neonatal mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of patients undergoing anesthesia for cesarean delivery in Africa indicated patients more likely to receive GA. Anesthesia complications and neonatal mortality were more frequent following GA. SA was often administered to high-risk patients, including those with eclampsia or obstetric hemorrhage. Training in the principles of selection of method of anesthesia, and the skills of safe GA and neonatal resuscitation, is recommended.

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes. METHODS: Included clinical trials investigated goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery and reported at least one patient-centred postoperative outcome. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles on March 8, 2021. Two investigators performed abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and bias assessment. The primary outcomes were mortality and hospital length of stay, whereas 15 postoperative complications were included based on availability. From a main pool of comparable trials, meta-analyses were performed on trials with homogenous outcome definitions. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). RESULTS: The main pool consisted of 76 trials with intermediate risk of bias for most outcomes. Overall, goal-directed haemodynamic therapy might reduce mortality (odds ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.09) and shorten length of stay (mean difference=-0.72 days; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.35) but with low certainty in the evidence. For both outcomes, larger effects favouring goal-directed haemodynamic therapy were seen in abdominal surgery, very high-risk surgery, and using targets based on preload variation by the respiratory cycle. However, formal tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy decreased risk of several postoperative outcomes, but only infectious outcomes and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia might decrease mortality, hospital length of stay, and several postoperative complications. Only infectious postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty in the evidence.

Early Postoperative Outcomes of Super Morbid Obese Compared to Morbid Obese Patients After Ambulatory Surgery Under General Anesthesia: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of a National Database.

BACKGROUND: Patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥50 kg/m2, defined as super morbid obesity, represent the fastest growing segment of patients with obesity in the United States. It is currently unknown if super morbid obese patients are at greater odds than morbid obese patients for poor outcomes after outpatient surgery. The main objective of the current investigation is to assess if super morbid obese patients are at increased odds for postoperative complications after outpatient surgery when compared to morbid obese patients. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from 2017 to 2018 was queried to extract and compare patients who underwent outpatient surgery and were defined as either morbidly obese (BMI >40 and <50 kg/m2) or super morbidly obese (BMI ≥50 kg/m2). The primary outcome was the occurrence of medical adverse events within 72 hours of discharge. In addition, we also examine death and readmissions as secondary outcomes. A propensity-matched analysis was used to evaluate the association of BMI ≥50 kg/m2 versus BMI between 40 and 50 kg/m2 and the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 661,729 outpatient surgeries were included in the 2017-2018 NSQIP database. Of those, 7160 with a BMI ≥50 kg/m2 were successfully matched to 7160 with a BMI <50 and ≥40 kg/m2. After matching, 17 of 7160 (0.24%) super morbid obese patients had 3-day medical complications compared to 15 of 7160 (0.21%) morbid obese patients (odds ratio [OR; 95% confidence interval {CI}] = 1.13 [0.57-2.27], P = .72). The rate of 3-day surgical complications in super morbid obese patients was also not different from morbid obese patients. Thirty-five of 7160 (0.48%) super morbid obese patients were readmitted within 3 days, compared to 33 of 7160 (0.46%) morbid obese patients (OR [95% CI] = 1.06 [0.66-1.71], P = .80). When evaluated in a multivariable analysis as a continuous variable (1 unit increase in BMI) in all patients, BMI ≥40 kg/m2 was not significantly associated with overall medical complications (OR [95% CI] = 1.00 [0.98-1.04], P = .87), overall surgical complication (OR [95% CI] = 1.02 [0.98-1.06], P = .23), or readmissions (OR [95% CI] = 0.99 [0.97-1.02], P = .8). CONCLUSIONS: Super morbid obesity is not associated with higher rates of early postoperative complications when compared to morbid obese patients. Specifically, early pulmonary complications were very low after outpatient surgery. Super morbid obese patients should not be excluded from outpatient procedures based on a BMI cutoff alone.

Long-term Survival after Combined Epidural-General Anesthesia or General Anesthesia Alone: Follow-up of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Experimental and observational research suggests that combined epidural-general anesthesia may improve long-term survival after cancer surgery by reducing anesthetic and opioid consumption and by blunting surgery-related inflammation. This study therefore tested the primary hypothesis that combined epidural-general anesthesia improves long-term survival in elderly patients. METHODS: This article presents a long-term follow-up of patients enrolled in a previous trial conducted at five hospitals. Patients aged 60 to 90 yr and scheduled for major noncardiac thoracic and abdominal surgeries were randomly assigned to either combined epidural-general anesthesia with postoperative epidural analgesia or general anesthesia alone with postoperative intravenous analgesia. The primary outcome was overall postoperative survival. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific, recurrence-free, and event-free survival. RESULTS: Among 1,802 patients who were enrolled and randomized in the underlying trial, 1,712 were included in the long-term analysis; 92% had surgery for cancer. The median follow-up duration was 66 months (interquartile range, 61 to 80). Among patients assigned to combined epidural-general anesthesia, 355 of 853 (42%) died compared with 326 of 859 (38%) deaths in patients assigned to general anesthesia alone: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.24; P = 0.408. Cancer-specific survival was similar with combined epidural-general anesthesia (327 of 853 [38%]) and general anesthesia alone (292 of 859 [34%]): adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.28; P = 0.290. Recurrence-free survival was 401 of 853 [47%] for patients who had combined epidural-general anesthesia versus 389 of 859 [45%] with general anesthesia alone: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.12; P = 0.692. Event-free survival was 466 of 853 [55%] in patients who had combined epidural-general anesthesia versus 450 of 859 [52%] for general anesthesia alone: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.12; P = 0.815. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients having major thoracic and abdominal surgery, combined epidural-general anesthesia with epidural analgesia did not improve overall or cancer-specific long-term mortality. Nor did epidural analgesia improve recurrence-free survival. Either approach can therefore reasonably be selected based on patient and clinician preference.

Regional Anaesthesia for Lower Extremity Amputation is Associated with Reduced Post-operative Complications Compared with General Anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: Primary and secondary lower extremity amputation, performed for patients with lower extremity arterial disease, is associated with increased post-operative morbidity. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of regional anaesthesia vs. general anaesthesia on post-operative pulmonary complications. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 45 492 patients undergoing lower extremity amputation between 2005 and 2018 was conducted using data from the American College of Surgeons National Safety Quality Improvement Program database. Multivariable logistic regression was carried out to assess differences in primary outcome of post-operative pulmonary complications (pneumonia or respiratory failure requiring re-intubation) within 48 hours and 30 days after surgery between patients receiving regional (RA) or general anaesthesia (GA). Secondary outcomes included post-operative blood transfusion, septic shock, re-operation, and post-operative death within 30 days. RESULTS: Of 45 492 patients, 40 026 (88.0%) received GA and 5 466 (12.0%) RA. Patients who received GA had higher odds of developing pulmonary complications at 48 hours (2.1% vs. 1.4%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 - 1.78; p = .007) and within 30 days (6.3% vs. 5.9%; aOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.09 - 1.78; p = .039). The odds of blood transfusions (aOR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02 - 1.21; p = .017), septic shock (aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 - 1.60; p = .025) and re-operation (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.03 - 1.53; p = .023) were also higher for patients who received GA vs. patients who received RA. No difference in mortality rate was observed between patients who received GA and those who received RA (5.7% vs. 7.1%; odds ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 - 1.07). CONCLUSION: A statistically significant reduction in pulmonary complications was observed in patients who received RA for lower extremity amputation compared with GA.

Epidural Anesthesia-Analgesia and Recurrence-free Survival after Lung Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia and analgesia reduce the stress response to surgery and decrease the need for volatile anesthesia and opioids, thereby preserving cancer-specific immune defenses. This study therefore tested the primary hypothesis that combining epidural anesthesia-analgesia with general anesthesia improves recurrence-free survival after lung cancer surgery. METHODS: Adults scheduled for video-assisted thoracoscopic lung cancer resections were randomized 1:1 to general anesthesia and intravenous opioid analgesia or combined epidural-general anesthesia and epidural analgesia. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (time from surgery to the earliest date of recurrence/metastasis or all-cause death). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (time from surgery to all-cause death) and cancer-specific survival (time from surgery to cancer-specific death). Long-term outcome assessors were blinded to treatment. RESULTS: Between May 2015 and November 2017, 400 patients were enrolled and randomized to general anesthesia alone (n = 200) or combined epidural-general anesthesia (n = 200). All were included in the analysis. The median follow-up duration was 32 months (interquartile range, 24 to 48). Recurrence-free survival was similar in each group, with 54 events (27%) with general anesthesia alone versus 48 events (24%) with combined epidural-general anesthesia (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.35; P = 0.608). Overall survival was also similar with 25 events (13%) versus 31 (16%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.96; P = 0.697). There was also no significant difference in cancer-specific survival with 24 events (12%) versus 29 (15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.91; P = 0.802). Patients assigned to combined epidural-general had more intraoperative hypotension: 94 patients (47%) versus 121 (61%; relative risk, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.55; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural anesthesia-analgesia for major lung cancer surgery did not improve recurrence-free, overall, or cancer-specific survival compared with general anesthesia alone, although the CI included both substantial benefit and harm.

The Role of Anesthesiologists in Perioperative Limitation of Potentially Life-Sustaining Medical Treatments: A Narrative Review and Perspective.

No patient arrives at the hospital to undergo general anesthesia for its own sake. Anesthesiology is a symbiont specialty, with the primary mission of preventing physical and psychological pain, easing anxiety, and shepherding physiologic homeostasis so that other care may safely progress. For most elective surgeries, the patient-anesthesiologist relationship begins shortly before and ends after the immediate perioperative period. While this may tempt anesthesiologists to defer goals of care discussions to our surgical or primary care colleagues, we have both an ethical and a practical imperative to share this responsibility. Since the early 1990s, the American College of Surgeons (ACS), the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and the Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses (AORN) have mandated a "required reconsideration" of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Key ethical considerations and guiding principles informing this "required reconsideration" have been extensively discussed in the literature and include respect for patient autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. In this article, we address how well these principles and guidelines are translated into daily clinical practice and how often anesthesiologists actually discuss goals of care or potential limitations to life-sustaining medical treatments (LSMTs) before administering anesthesia or sedation. Having done so, we review how often providers implement goal-concordant care, that is, care that reflects and adheres to the stated patient wishes. We conclude with describing several key gaps in the literature on goal-concordance of perioperative care for patients with limitations on LSMT and summarize novel strategies and promising efforts described in recent literature to improve goal-concordance of perioperative care.

Anesthetic choice during transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy affects the risk of myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have shown no differences in the outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) performed with general anesthesia (GA) vs local or regional anesthesia (LRA). To date, no study has specifically compared the outcomes of TCAR to those of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) stratified by anesthetic type. The aim of the present study was to identify the effect of the anesthetic type on the outcomes of TCAR vs CEA. METHODS: Patients undergoing CEA and TCAR for carotid artery stenosis from 2016 to 2019 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were included. We excluded patients who had undergone concomitant procedures, patients with more than two stented lesions, and patients who had undergone the procedure for a nonatherosclerotic indication. Propensity score matching was performed between the two procedures stratified by the anesthetic type for age, sex, race, presenting symptoms, major comorbidities (ie, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease), previous coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous transluminal coronary intervention, previous CEA or carotid artery stenting, degree of ipsilateral stenosis, the presence of contralateral occlusion, and preoperative medications. Intergroup differences between the treatment groups and differences in the perioperative outcomes were tested using the McNemar test for categorical variables and the paired t test or Wilcoxon matched pairs signed rank test for continuous variables, as appropriate. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated as the ratio of the probability of the outcome event for the patients treated within each treatment group. RESULTS: A total of 65,337 patients were included. Of the 65,337 patients, 59,664 had undergone carotid revascularization under GA (91%). When performed with LRA, TCAR and CEA had similar rates of stroke, death, and MI. However, when performed with GA, patients undergoing TCAR had a 50% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA under GA (0.5% vs 1.0%; RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.32-0.80; P < .01). When stratified by symptomatic status, patients undergoing TCAR with GA for symptomatic carotid disease had a 67% decreased risk of MI compared with those undergoing CEA with GA for symptomatic disease (0.4% vs 1.2%; RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.75; P < .01). In contrast, no difference was found in the risk of MI between patients undergoing CEA vs TCAR for asymptomatic carotid disease (0.6% vs 0.9%; RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.37-1.14; P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study have confirmed previous studies suggesting that TCAR confers a lower risk of MI compared with CEA. However, our findings demonstrated no differences in the MI rates between TCAR and CEA when performed with LRA. Patients undergoing TCAR under GA had lower rates of MI compared with patients undergoing CEA under GA. When stratified by symptomatic status, the benefit of TCAR persisted only for the symptomatic patients.

General anaesthesia related mortality in a limited resource settings region: a retrospective study in two teaching hospitals of Butembo.

BACKGROUND: General anaesthesia (GA) in developing countries is still a high-risk practice, especially in Africa, accompanied with high morbidity and mortality. No study has yet been conducted in Butembo in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to determine the mortality related to GA practice. The main objective of this study was to assess mortality related to GA in Butembo. METHODS: This was a retrospective descriptive and analytic study of patients who underwent surgery under GA in the 2 main teaching hospitals of Butembo from January 2011 to December 2015. Data were collected from patients files, anaesthesia registries and were analysed with SPSS 26. RESULTS: From a total of 921 patients, 539 (58.5%) were male and 382 (41.5%) female patients. A total of 83 (9.0%) patients died representing an overall perioperative mortality rate of 90 per 1000. Out of the 83 deaths, 38 occurred within 24 h representing GA related mortality of 41 per 1000. There was a global drop in mortality from 2011 to 2015. The risk factors of death were: being a neonate or a senior adult, emergency operation, ASA physical status > 2 and a single deranged vital sign preoperatively, presenting any complication during GA, anaesthesia duration > 120 minutes as well as visceral surgeries/laparotomies. Ketamine was the most employed anaesthetic. CONCLUSION: GA related mortality is very high in Butembo. Improved GA services and outcomes can be obtained by training more anaesthesia providers, proper patients monitoring, improved infrastructure, better equipment and drugs procurement and considering regional anaesthesia whenever possible.

A meta-analysis of locoregional anesthesia versus general anesthesia in endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analytic review of studies investigating the effect of the anesthesia modality on perioperative mortality in endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (REVAR). METHODS: The present meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Multiple electronic databases were comprehensively searched from database inception to January 2020. Eligible studies included cohort studies that reported the 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate or the multivariate adjusted odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio of the mortality risk for patients who underwent emergency REVAR under locoregional anesthesia (LA) vs general anesthesia (GA). A random effects model was used to estimate the ORs by pooling the related data from individual studies. RESULTS: A total of eight studies were included in this analysis. The first meta-analysis of seven studies that reported the 30-day/in-hospital mortality with a total of 3116 patients (867 in the LA group and 2249 in the GA group) revealed that LA was associated with a lower 30-day/in-hospital mortality than GA (16.4% vs 25.4%; unadjusted OR, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.68). The second meta-analysis of three of these seven studies (including 586 patients in the LA group and 1945 in the GA group) that reported the perioperative variables revealed comparable baseline characteristics but a lower 30-day/in-hospital mortality in the LA group (unadjusted OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.71). The third meta-analysis of the adjusted ORs or hazard ratios that were reported from four studies (including 501 patients in the LA group and 1136 in the GA group) showed a similar trend (adjusted OR,0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.75). CONCLUSIONS: REVAR under LA is associated with a lower 30-day/in-hospital mortality than REVAR under GA. However, because the included studies may have had some observation bias, further randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate the present results.

Trends of hospital-based surgery for varicose veins in the elderly.

OBJECTIVE: The treatment of varicose veins has shifted during the past decade to the office setting. Although recent studies have demonstrated the safety of venous ablation for the elderly in the office, a paucity of data is available on the contemporary outcomes of surgery for varicose veins in the operating room. The present study analyzed the trends and outcomes of varicose vein surgery in the elderly using a large national database. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Initiative Program database (2005-2017) was reviewed. Patients undergoing vein ablation or open surgery (ie, high ligation, stripping, phlebectomy) for venous insufficiency were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes and the principal diagnosis. The patients were stratified into 3 age groups <65, 65 to 79, and ≥80 years. The preoperative and operative characteristics and outcomes were compared. Logistic regression was performed to identify the risk factors associated with any adverse event, defined as any morbidity or mortality. RESULTS: A total of 48,615 venous surgeries had been performed, with 9177 (18.9%) performed in patients aged 65 to 79 years and 1180 (2.4%) in patients aged ≥80 years. The proportion of patients in the 65- to 79-age group had steadily increased during the study period from 12.8% in 2005 to 22.3% in 2017 (P < .01). The proportion of patients aged ≥80 years had remained stable (P = .23). Patients aged ≥80 years had significantly more comorbidities, were more likely to have undergone vein ablation alone (P < .01), were more likely to be treated for ulceration (P < .01) and less likely to have received general anesthesia (P < .01) compared with the younger age groups. Overall morbidity increased significantly with increased age group (P < .01) but remained low (2.5%). Mortality was very low (0.02%) and not significantly different among the age groups. The factors independently associated with any adverse event were dialysis (odds ratio [OR], 7.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3-15.6), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification per unit increase (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.02-1.3), use of general anesthesia (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4), and combined venous ablation and open procedures compared with venous ablation alone (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5). However, age was not associated with adverse events (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 1.0-1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Varicose vein surgery is safe for all age groups and is being increasingly offered to the elderly. High-risk patients might benefit from the avoidance of hybrid procedures and general anesthesia when possible to minimize the occurrence of adverse events. Conservative measures should be exhausted before surgery for the dialysis population.

Influence of Anesthetic Techniques on Perioperative Outcomes after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to explore the influence of anesthetic techniques on perioperative outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a Chinese population. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed in patients after elective EVAR for infrarenal AAA at our single center. Patients were classified into general anesthesia (GA), regional anesthesia (RA), and local anesthesia (LA) groups. The primary outcomes (30-day mortality and morbidity) and secondary outcomes [procedure time, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and length of hospital stay (LOS)] were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: From January 2006 to December 2015, 486 consecutive patients underwent elective EVAR at our center. GA was used in 155 patients (31.9%), RA in 56 (11.5%), and LA in 275 (56.6%). The GA patients had fewer respiratory comorbidities, shorter and more angulated proximal necks, and more concomitant iliac aneurysms. LA during EVAR was significantly associated with a shorter procedure time (GA, P < 0.001; RA, P < 0.001) and shorter LOS (GA, P = 0.002; RA, P = 0.001), but a higher MAP (GA, P < 0.001; RA, P < 0.001) compared with GA and RA. LA was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiac (odds ratio (OR) 4.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-15.04), pulmonary (OR 5.37, 95% CI 1.58-18.23), and systemic complications (OR 4.15, 95% CI 1.85-9.33) compared with GA. RA was also associated with a decreased risk of systemic complications (OR 4.74, 95% CI 1.19-18.92) compared with GA. There was no difference in the 30-day mortality, neurologic complications, renal complications, and intraoperative extra procedures among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthetic techniques for EVAR have no influence on the 30-day mortality. LA for EVAR appears to be beneficial concerning the procedure time, LOS, and 30-day systemic complications for patients after elective EVAR for infrarenal AAA in the Chinese population.

Endograft type and anesthesia mode are associated with mortality of endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair has become the primary treatment modality for ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. This study examines the impact of endograft type on perioperative outcomes for ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. METHOD: The targeted endovascular aneurysm repair files of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2012-2017) were used. Only patients treated for ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm were included. All patients requiring concomitant stenting of the visceral arteries or aneurysmal iliac arteries or open abdominal surgery were excluded. The characteristics of patients treated with the different endografts and the corresponding outcomes were compared using Stata software. RESULTS: There were 479 patients treated with the three most common endografts: Cook Zenith (n = 127), Gore Excluder (n = 239), and Medtronic Endurant (n = 113). The number of other endografts was too small for statistical analysis. Compared to patients treated with Excluder or Endurant, the patients treated with Zenith had significantly lower body mass index (P < .001) and were less likely to be white (P < .001). On the other hand, patients treated with Endurant were less likely to be smoker (P = .016). Patients treated with Zenith had significantly larger ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter (P = .045). The overall mortality was 18% and morbidity 74.3%. There was a statistically significant difference in overall mortality (Zenith = 11.8%, Excluder = 18%, Endurant = 24.8%, P = .033) but not morbidity (P = .808) between the three groups. Post hoc analysis for overall mortality showed only significant difference between Zenith and Endurant. The difference in mortality was not significant in patients presenting with ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm without hypotension (P = .065). On multivariable analysis, treatment with the Endurant endograft was associated with increased mortality compared to Zenith (odds ratio = 3.0 [confidence interval 1.31-6.7]). General anesthesia (odds ratio = 2.67 [confidence interval 1.02-7.02]), rupture with hypotension (odds ratio = 4.49 [confidence interval 2.54-7.95]), and dependent functional status (odds ratio = 5.7 [confidence interval 1.96-16.59]) were independently associated with increased mortality while increasing body mass index (odds ratio = 0.97 [confidence interval 0.95-0.99]) was associated with reduced risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights contemporary outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm with relatively low mortality. Endograft type and anesthesia technique are modifiable factors that can potentially improve outcomes. Significant variation in the outcomes of the different endografts warrants further research.

Anesthesia Type is Associated with Decreased Cranial Nerve Injury in Carotid Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia modalities for carotid endarterectomy continue to vary nationally. We evaluated and compared short-term outcomes after carotid endarterectomy with general anesthesia (GA) and regional anesthesia (RA) in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. METHODS: The 2011-2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Data Files (PUFs) with merged Vascular Procedure-Targeted PUFs for carotid endarterectomy were queried for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. Postoperative complications, mortality, and hospital length of stay in patients undergoing GA or RA were compared. RESULTS: A total of 14,447 patients were evaluated: 12,389 (85.7%) with GA and 2,058 (14.3%) with RA. The use of GA was inversely associated with patients' age (88.0% in patients aged 22-64 years vs. 83.4% in patients aged ≥80 years, P < 0.0001) and with symptomatic presentation (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-1.38). There were no differences between GA and RA for in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, or postoperative complications of transient ischemic attack, stroke, bleeding, acute renal failure, or restenosis. However, rates of cranial nerve injury were significantly higher in GA than in RA (2.9% vs. 1.7%, respectively; P < 0.002) and confirmed by multivariable analysis (OR = 1.68; 95% CI: 1.19-2.39). Total operative time was also longer for GA than for RA (median: 115 minutes; Interquartile range (IQR): 89-145 versus median: 93 minutes; IQR: 76-119, respectively; P < 0.0001). Hospital length of stay was greater in GA than in RA (median: 1 day; IQR 1-2 vs. median: 1 day; IQR 1-1, respectively; P < 0.0001), as were 30-day readmission rates (6.7% vs. 5.4%, respectively; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Iatrogenic nerve injury is a feared complication of carotid endarterectomy, especially in elective asymptomatic patients. RA reduces the rate of cranial nerve injury compared with GA. RA is also not inferior to GA for postoperative complications with the benefit of shorter operative times, lengths of hospital stay, and decreased 30-day readmission rates. Consideration should be given to more widespread adoption of this underused anesthesia modality.