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.

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.

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.

Regional Anesthesia is Underutilized for Carotid Endarterectomy Despite Improved Perioperative Outcomes Compared with General Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: The choice of anesthetic for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) continues to be controversial. Recent literature suggests improved outcomes with the use of regional anesthesia (RA) compared with general anesthesia (GA). The objective of this study was to examine the utilization and outcomes of RA for CEA using a national database. METHODS: The targeted CEA files of the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2011-2017) were reviewed. Patients were stratified based on anesthesia type into RA and GA, and patients' characteristics were compared between the 2 groups. The outcomes of CEA under GA and RA were compared after 2:1 propensity matching. RESULTS: There were 26,206 CEAs, and 14% (n = 3,664) were performed under RA, with no change in relative utilization during the study period (P = 0.557). Patients treated under RA were more likely to be older than 65 years (80.6% vs. 75.8%; P < 0.001) and White (90.8% vs. 83.5%; P < 0.001) but less likely to have diabetes (28.2% vs. 31.2%; P = 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10.2% vs. 10.5%; P < 0.001), and heart failure (1.0% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.02) and be symptomatic (37.4% vs. 42.7%; P < 0.001). After matching, there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Patients undergoing RA were less likely to experience the combined end point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or mortality compared with GA. GA patients were more likely to have longer operating time and hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: CEA performed under RA is associated with improved outcomes compared with GA. RA is underutilized in carotid surgery, and strategies to optimize its use are needed.

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.

Network meta-analysis of urinary retention and mortality after Lichtenstein repair of inguinal hernia under local, regional or general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Urinary retention and mortality after open repair of inguinal hernia may depend on the type of anaesthesia. The aim of this study was to investigate possible differences in urinary retention and mortality in adults after Lichtenstein repair under different types of anaesthesia. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in the Cochrane, PubMed and Embase databases, with the last search on 1 August 2018. Eligible studies included adult patients having elective unilateral inguinal hernia repair by the Lichtenstein technique under local, regional or general anaesthesia. Outcomes were urinary retention and mortality, which were compared between the three types of anaesthesia using meta-analyses and a network meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 53 studies covering 11 683 patients were included. Crude rates of urinary retention were 0·1 (95 per cent c.i. 0 to 0·2) per cent for local anaesthesia, 8·6 (6·6 to 10·5) per cent for regional anaesthesia and 1·4 (0·6 to 2·2) per cent for general anaesthesia. No death related to the type of anaesthesia was reported. The network meta-analysis showed a higher risk of urinary retention after both regional (odds ratio (OR) 15·73, 95 per cent c.i. 5·85 to 42·32; P < 0·001) and general (OR 4·07, 1·07 to 15·48; P = 0·040) anaesthesia compared with local anaesthesia, and a higher risk after regional compared with general anaesthesia (OR 3·87, 1·10 to 13·60; P = 0·035). Meta-analyses showed a higher risk of urinary retention after regional compared with local anaesthesia (P < 0·001), but no difference between general and local anaesthesia (P = 0·08). CONCLUSION: Local or general anaesthesia had significantly lower risks of urinary retention than regional anaesthesia. Differences in mortality could not be assessed as there were no deaths after elective Lichtenstein repair. Registration number: CRD42018087115 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero).

ANTECEDENTES: La retención de orina y la mortalidad tras la reparación abierta de las hernias inguinales puede depender del tipo de anestesia. El objetivo de este estudio fue investigar posibles diferencias en la retención de orina y mortalidad en adultos tras reparación de Lichtenstein bajo diferentes métodos anestésicos. MÉTODOS: Se efectuaron búsquedas sistemáticas en las bases de datos Cochrane, PubMed y Embase con la última revisión el 1 de agosto de 2018. Los estudios elegibles incluyeron pacientes adultos sometidos a reparación electiva de hernia inguinal unilateral mediante la técnica de Lichtenstein bajo anestesia local, regional o general. Las variables de resultados fueron la retención de orina y la mortalidad, comparándose los tres tipos de anestesia con metaanálisis y un metaanálisis en red. RESULTADOS: En total se incluyeron 53 estudios con un total de 11.683 pacientes. Las tasas crudas de retención de orina fueron del 0,1% (i.c. del 95% 0,0-0,2%) para la anestesia local, del 8,6% (i.c. del 95% 6,6-10,5%) para la anestesia regional y del 1,4% (i.c. del 95% 0,6-2,2%) para la anestesia general. No se observó mortalidad relacionada con el tipo de anestesia. El metaanálisis en red mostró un riesgo más elevado de retención de orina tras la anestesia regional (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 15,73 (i.c. del 95% 5,85-42,32), P < 0,001) y anestesia general (OR 4,07 (i.c. del 95% 1,07-15,48), P = 0,040) en comparación con la anestesia local y un riesgo más alto tras la regional en comparación con la anestesia general (OR 3,87 (i.c. del 95% 1,10-13,60), P = 0,035). Los metaanálisis mostraron un riesgo más alto de retención de orina tras la anestesia regional en comparación con la anestesia local (P < 0,001), pero sin diferencias entre anestesia general y local (P = 0,08). CONCLUSIÓN: La anestesia local o general presentaba un riesgo significativo menor de retención urinaria en comparación con la anestesia regional. Las diferencias en mortalidad no pudieron ser evaluadas ya ningún paciente falleció tras la reparación electiva de Lichtenstein.

Outcomes of Local and Regional Anesthesia for Superficialization of Brachiobasilic Arteriovenous Fistulas.

BACKGROUND: Superficialization, the second stage of a two-stage brachiobasilic arteriovenous fistula (BB-AVF), can be performed under local (LA), regional (RA), or general anesthesia (GA). Given the numerous comorbidities in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), our preference is to use RA or LA when feasible. Our goal was to review the success rate of RA and LA, need for conversion to GA, and cardiac morbidity and mortality for BB-AVF superficialization. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients who underwent BB-AVF creation with second-stage superficialization over a 4-year period. The primary outcome measures included need for conversion to GA, myocardial infarction (MI), and 30-day mortality. A secondary outcome was total operative time (time from preoperative briefing to the time the patient left the operating room). We analyzed the data using Fisher Exact test for categorical data and nonparametric analysis for continuous data. RESULTS: There were 42 patients who underwent BB-AVF superficialization. The median age was 56 years, with a mean body mass index of 29. Most patients were male (55%) and predominantly Hispanic/Latino (60%). RA was utilized in 35 patients (83%), LA in 5 (12%), and GA in 2 (5%). The conversion rate from RA to GA was 0% and was 20% (n = 1) from LA to GA. There were no postoperative MI or deaths. There was no significant difference in total operative time (219.6 min for RA, 234.5 min for LA, and 278 min for GA, (P = 0.37)). CONCLUSIONS: Local and/or regional anesthesia can be successfully used in the majority of patients undergoing BB-AVF superficialization. LA and RA are associated with negligible cardiac morbidity and mortality. Conversion from RA to GA is rare. Use of RA does not result in a longer total operative time.

Utilization of regional versus general anesthesia and its impact on lower extremity bypass outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies evaluating general anesthesia (GA) vs regional (epidural/spinal) anesthesia (RA) for infrainguinal bypass have produced conflicting results. The purpose of this study was to analyze the factors associated with contemporary use of RA and to determine whether it is associated with improved outcomes after infrainguinal bypass in patients with critical limb ischemia. METHODS: Using the Vascular Quality Initiative infrainguinal database, a retrospective review identified all critical limb ischemia patients who received an infrainguinal bypass from 2011 through 2016. Patients were then separated by GA or RA. Primary outcomes were perioperative mortality, complications, and length of stay. Predictive factors for RA and perioperative outcomes were analyzed using a mixed-effects model to adjust for center differences. RESULTS: There were 16,052 patients identified to have a lower extremity bypass during this time frame with 572 (3.5%) receiving RA. There was a wide variation in the use of RA, with 31% of participating centers not using it at all. Age (67.2 vs 70.3 years; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (25.7% vs 30.9%; P < .001), and urgency of the operation (75.7% vs 80.4%; P = .01) were found to be independently associated with receiving a regional anesthetic. Univariate and multivariate analysis demonstrated that length of stay (6.8 days vs 5.7 days; P < .01), postoperative congestive heart failure (2.3% vs 1.1%; P = .040), and change in renal function (5.7% vs 2.9%; P = .005) were all significant outcomes in favor of RA. There was a trend toward lower mortality rates; however, this did not reach statistical significance. Rates of myocardial infarction, pulmonary complications, and stroke were not found to be statistically different. Coarsened exact matching continued to demonstrate a difference in length of stay and rates of new-onset congestive heart failure in favor of RA. CONCLUSIONS: RA is an infrequent but effective form of anesthesia for infrainguinal bypass surgery. Elderly patients and those with underlying respiratory problems may benefit from this form of anesthesia. Further evaluation within institutions should be performed to identify which patients would most benefit from RA or GA.

Anesthesia Type Is Not Associated With Postoperative Complications in the Care of Patients With Lower Extremity Traumatic Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Lower extremity fracture fixation is commonplace and represents the majority of orthopedic trauma surgical volume. Despite this, few studies have examined the use of regional anesthesia or neuraxial anesthesia (RA/NA) versus general anesthesia (GA) in this surgical population. We aimed to determine the overall rates of RA/NA use and whether RA/NA was associated with lower mortality and morbidity versus GA for patients with lower extremity orthopedic trauma. METHODS: We conducted a propensity-matched, retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients. We used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) dataset to identify patients undergoing surgical correction of low velocity orthopedic lower extremity traumas between 2011 and 2016. Patients were separated into 2 groups based on anesthesia type (RA/NA versus GA). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included return to the operating room, failure to wean from the ventilator, intubation, pneumonia, acute kidney injury, myocardial infarction, transfusion, venous thromboembolism (VTE), urinary tract infection, sepsis, length of stay, days from operation to discharge, number of complications, and unplanned readmission. RESULTS: We identified 18,467 patients undergoing surgical repair of lower extremity fractures. Approximately 9.58% had RA/NA and 89.9% had GA as their primary anesthetic. After 1:1 propensity matching, the final cohort had 3254 patients. Our analysis did not find a difference in 30-day mortality between the 2 groups. There were also no significant differences in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the potential advantages of RA/NA, utilization for lower extremity trauma was low in our analysis; only 9.58% of patients were in the RA/NA group, with the majority receiving spinal anesthesia. This may be due to surgeon preference to allow for postoperative monitoring for neurologic injury and compartment syndrome or logistical factors given the urgent nature of these trauma cases. No significant differences in 30-day mortality and postoperative complications were found between RA/NA and GA for patients with lower extremity orthopedic fractures. The choice of anesthesia is multifactorial and may be driven by patient and provider preferences in these operations.

Regional Analgesia Added to General Anesthesia Compared With General Anesthesia Plus Systemic Analgesia for Cardiac Surgery in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the effects of regional analgesic (RA) techniques with systemic analgesia on postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, resources utilization, reoperation, death, and complications of the analgesic techniques in children undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: A search was done in May 2018 in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials comparing RA techniques with systemic analgesia. Risks of bias of included trials were judged with the Cochrane tool. Data were analyzed with fixed- (I(2) < 25%) or random-effects models (I(2) ≥ 25%). The quality of evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group scale. RESULTS: We included 14 randomized controlled trials with 605 participants (312 to RA and 293 to the comparator). RA reduces pain up to 24 hours after surgery. At 6-8 hours after surgery, the standardized mean difference was -0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.22 to -0.40; low-quality evidence). We did not find a difference for nausea and vomiting (risk ratio [RR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.61-1.31; very low-quality evidence), duration of tracheal intubation (standardized mean difference, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.40 to 0.05; low-quality evidence), intensive care unit length of stay (mean difference, -0.10 hours; 95% CI, -1.31 to 1.12 hours; low-quality evidence), hospital length of stay (mean difference, -0.02 days; 95% CI, -1.16 to 1.12 days; low-quality evidence), reoperation (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.17-3.28; low-quality evidence), death (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.05-4.94; low-quality evidence), and respiratory depression (RR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.20-21.68; very low-quality evidence). No trial reported signs of local anesthetic toxicity or lasting neurological or infectious complications related to the RA techniques. One trial reported 1 transient ipsilateral episode of diaphragmatic paralysis with intrapleural analgesia that resolved with cessation of local anesthetic administration. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to systemic analgesia, RA techniques reduce postoperative pain up to 24 hours in children undergoing cardiac surgery. Currently, there is no evidence that RA for pediatric cardiac surgery has any impact on major morbidity and mortality. These results should be interpreted cautiously because they represent a meta-analysis of small and heterogeneous studies. Further studies are needed.

Locoregional Anesthesia Offers Improved Outcomes after Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: General anesthesia (GA) and locoregional anesthesia (LA) are two anesthetic options for endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (REVAR). Studies on elective endovascular repair of nonruptured aneurysms have indicated that in select patients, LA may provide improved outcomes compared with GA. We aimed to examine the 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing REVAR using GA and LA in a contemporary nationwide cohort of patients presenting with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. METHODS: Patients who underwent REVAR using GA and LA from January 2011 through December 2015, inclusively, were studied in the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP)-targeted EVAR database. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare preoperative demographics, operation-specific variables, and 30-day postoperative outcomes between the two groups. RESULTS: Six-hundred ninety patients were identified to have undergone REVAR from 2011 to 2015, of which 12.5% (86) were performed under LA. For the entire cohort, the mean age was 74.3 years, and 80% were male. Mean aneurysm size was 7.6 cm and did not differ between the two anesthetic groups. Major comorbidities were similar between both groups, except a slightly higher rate of congestive heart failure in the LA group (7.0% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.02). Proximal or distal aneurysm extent also did not differ between the two groups. There was a significantly higher rate of bilateral percutaneous access in the LA group (59.3% vs. 25.2%, P < 0.01). REVAR under LA had shorter mean operative time (132 vs. 166 min, P < 0.01) and lower rate of concomitant lower extremity revascularization (2.3% vs. 10.6%, P < 0.01). There were no differences in need for perioperative transfusion or any other adjunctive procedures. Ultimately, 30-day mortality was significantly lower in the LA group (16.3% vs. 25.2%, P < 0.01). This difference was more pronounced in the subgroup of patients with hemodynamic instability (15.4% vs. 39.4%, P < 0.01). The LA group also demonstrated significantly shorter intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (3.0 vs. 5.0 days, P = 0.01) and low rates of postoperative pneumonia (3.5% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.03). After adjustment for demographics, comorbid conditions, hypotensive status, and aneurysm characteristics, there was a two-fold higher mortality in patients undergoing REVAR using GA versus LA, with a four-fold increase in the hemodynamically unstable cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The ACS NSQIP-targeted EVAR database shows that LA is used in only 12.5% of patients undergoing REVAR in this nationwide cohort. This rate does not change when examining the subset of patients who are hemodynamically unstable. Other benefits include shorter ICU lengths of stay and lower rates of pneumonia. These data suggest that LA should be considered in patients undergoing REVAR, regardless of hemodynamic instability.

Anesthetic type and hospital outcomes after carotid endarterectomy from the Vascular Quality Initiative database.

OBJECTIVE: Studies on the safety of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) under different anesthetic techniques are sometimes contradictory. The aim of this study was to compare real-world outcomes of CEA under general anesthesia (GA) vs regional or local anesthesia (RA/LA). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative database (2003-2017) was performed. Primary outcomes included perioperative stroke, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) occurring during the hospital stay. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used. To minimize selection bias and to evaluate comparable groups, patients were matched on baseline variables using coarsened exact matching. RESULTS: Of 75,319 CEA cases, 6684 (8.9%) were performed under RA/LA. These patients were more likely to be older (median age, 72 vs 71 years) and male (62.5% vs 60.2%), with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (class 3-5, 94.2% vs 93.0%) than those undergoing CEA-GA (all P < .001). CEA-GA had higher crude rates of in-hospital cardiac outcomes including MI mainly diagnosed clinically or on electrocardiography (0.5% vs 0.2%; P = .01), dysrhythmia (1.6% vs 1.2%; P < .001), acute congestive heart failure (CHF; 0.5% vs 0.2%; P < .001), and hemodynamic instability (27.0% vs 20.0%; P < .001) compared with CEA-RA/LA. No difference in perioperative stroke or death was seen between the two groups. On multivariate analysis, CEA-GA was associated with twice the odds of in-hospital MI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-3.59; P = .03), 4 times the odds of acute CHF (aOR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.84-8.34; P < .001), and 1.5 times the odds of hemodynamic instability (aOR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.44-1.66; P < .001). Patients undergoing CEA-GA had 1.8 times the odds of staying in the hospital for >1 day (aOR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.67-1.93; P < .001). Coarsened exact matching confirmed our results. Risk factors associated with increased cardiac complications (MI and CHF) under GA included female gender, increased age, Medicaid insurance, history of smoking, medical comorbidities (such as hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, and CHF), prior ipsilateral carotid intervention, and urgent/emergent procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing CEA under GA have higher odds of postoperative MI, acute CHF, and hemodynamic instability compared with those undergoing CEA under RA/LA. They are also more likely to stay in the hospital for >1 day. However, the overall risk of cardiac adverse events after CEA was low, which made the differences clinically irrelevant. The choice of anesthesia approach to CEA should be driven by the team's experience and the patient's risk factors and preference.

Association of Hospital-level Neuraxial Anesthesia Use for Hip Fracture Surgery with Outcomes: A Population-based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: There is consistent and significant variation in neuraxial anesthesia use for hip fracture surgery across jurisdictions. We measured the association of hospital-level utilization of neuraxial anesthesia, independent of patient-level use, with 30-day survival (primary outcome) and length of stay and costs (secondary outcomes). METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using linked administrative data in Ontario, Canada. We identified all hip fracture patients more than 65 yr of age from 2002 to 2014. For each patient, we measured the proportion of hip fracture patients at their hospital who received neuraxial anesthesia in the year before their surgery. Multilevel, multivariable regression was used to measure the association of log-transformed hospital-level neuraxial anesthetic-use proportion with outcomes, controlling for patient-level anesthesia type and confounders. RESULTS: Of 107,317 patients, 57,080 (53.2%) had a neuraxial anesthetic; utilization varied from 0 to 100% between hospitals. In total, 9,122 (8.5%) of patients died within 30 days of surgery. Survival independently improved as hospital-level neuraxial use increased (P = 0.009). Primary and sensitivity analyses demonstrated that most of the survival benefit was realized with increase in hospital-level neuraxial use above 20 to 25%; there did not appear to be a substantial increase in survival above this point. No significant associations between hospital neuraxial anesthesia-use and other outcomes existed. CONCLUSIONS: Hip fracture surgery patients at hospitals that use more than 20 to 25% neuraxial anesthesia have improved survival independent of patient-level anesthesia type and other confounders. The underlying causal mechanism for this association requires a prospective study to guide improvements in perioperative care and outcomes of hip fracture patients. VISUAL ABSTRACT: An online visual overview is available for this article at http://links.lww.com/ALN/B634.

Is Anesthesia Technique Associated With a Higher Risk of Mortality or Complications Within 90 Days of Surgery for Geriatric Patients With Hip Fractures?

BACKGROUND: Postoperative mortality and complications after geriatric hip fracture surgery remain high despite efforts to improve perioperative care for these patients. One factor of particular interest is anesthetic technique, but prior studies on this are limited by sample selection, competing risks, and incomplete followup. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Among older patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture, does 90-day mortality differ depending on the type of anesthesia received? (2) Do 90-day emergency department returns and hospital readmissions differ based on anesthetic technique after geriatric hip fracture repairs? (3) Do 90-day Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) outcomes differ according to anesthetic techniques used during hip fracture surgery? METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on geriatric patients (65 years or older) with hip fractures between 2009 and 2014 using the Kaiser Permanente Hip Fracture Registry. A total of 1995 (11%) of the surgically treated patients with hip fracture were excluded as a result of missing anesthesia information. The final study sample consisted of 16,695 patients. Of these, 2027 (12%) died and 98 (< 1%) terminated membership during followup, which were handled as competing events and censoring events, respectively. Ninety-day mortality, emergency department returns, hospital readmission, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), myocardial infarction (MI), and pneumonia were evaluated using multivariable competing risk proportional subdistribution hazard regression according to type of anesthesia technique: general anesthesia, regional anesthesia, or conversion from regional to general. Of the 16,695 patients, 58% (N = 9629) received general anesthesia, 40% (N = 6597) received regional anesthesia, and 2.8% (N = 469) patients were converted from regional to general. RESULTS: Compared with regional anesthesia, patients treated with general anesthesia had a higher likelihood of overall 90-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.35; p < 0.001); however, when stratified by before and after hospital discharge but within 90 days of surgery, this higher risk was only observed during the inpatient stay (HR, 3.83; 95% CI, 3.18-4.61; p < 0.001); no difference was observed after hospital discharge (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94-1.16; p = 0.408). Patients undergoing conversion from regional to general also had a higher overall mortality risk compared with those undergoing regional anesthesia (HR, 1.34; 95% CI 1.04-1.74; p = 0.026), but this risk was only observed during their inpatient stay (HR, 6.84; 95% CI, 4.21-11.11; p < 0.001) when stratifying by before and after hospital discharge. Patients undergoing general anesthesia had a higher risk for all-cause readmission when compared with regional anesthesia (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19; p = 0.026). No differences according to anesthesia type were observed for risk of 90-day AHRQ outcomes, including DVT/PE, MI, and pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: We found the use of general anesthesia and conversion from regional to general anesthesia were associated with a higher risk of mortality during the in-hospital stay compared with regional anesthetic techniques, but this higher risk did not persist after hospital discharge. We also found general anesthesia to be associated with a higher risk of all-cause readmission compared with regional, but no other differences were observed in risk for complications. Our findings suggest regional anesthetic techniques may be preferred when possible in this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Loco-regional versus general anaesthesia for elective endovascular aneurysm repair - results of a cohort study and a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate whether patients undergoing elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with loco-regional anaesthetic techniques have better outcomes than those treated with general anaesthesia (GA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated outcomes of EVAR performed with regional anaesthesia (RA) or GA over a five-year period. Furthermore, we searched electronic bibliographic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL) to identify studies comparing different anaesthetic methods in EVAR. We defined perioperative mortality and morbidity as well as length of hospital stay (LOS) as the primary outcome measures. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effects models. Results are reported as the odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) and 95 % confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-five patients underwent standard EVAR over the study period (RA, 215 patients; GA 140 patients). Patients in both groups had comparable baseline demographics and clinical characteristics. Perioperative mortality was significantly lower in the RA group (0.5 % vs. 4.3 %, P = 0.017). No difference was found in perioperative morbidity (P = 0.370), LOS (P = 0.146), postoperative destination (P = 0.799), reoperation (P = 0.355) or readmission within 30 days (P = 0.846). Meta-analysis of data on 15,472 patients from 15 observational studies found a significantly lower perioperative mortality (OR 0.70, 95 % CI 0.52-0.95, P = 0.02) and morbidity (OR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.55-0.96, P = 0.02) in patients treated with loco-regional anaesthetic techniques compared to those treated with GA. Our sub-group analysis demonstrated that both local anaesthesia (LA) (P = 0.003) and RA (P < 0.0001) were associated with a significantly shorter LOS compared to GA. CONCLUSIONS: Local and/or regional anaesthetic techniques may be advantageous over GA in elective EVAR, as indicated by reduced perioperative mortality and morbidity and a shorter hospital stay. Considering the current level of evidence, LA or RA should be considered in selected patients. Further clinical research is required to provide high level evidence on the optimal anaesthetic technique in EVAR.

Effect of anaesthesia type on postoperative mortality and morbidities: a matched analysis of the NSQIP database.

BACKGROUND: The anaesthetic technique may influence clinical outcomes, but inherent confounding and small effect sizes makes this challenging to study. We hypothesized that regional anaesthesia (RA) is associated with higher survival and fewer postoperative organ dysfunctions when compared with general anaesthesia (GA). METHODS: We matched surgical procedures and type of anaesthesia using the US National Surgical Quality Improvement database, in which 264,421 received GA and 64,119 received RA. Procedures were matched according to Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and ASA physical status classification. Our primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality and secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay, and postoperative organ system dysfunction. After matching, multiple regression analysis was used to examine associations between anaesthetic type and outcomes, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: After matching and adjusting for covariates, type of anaesthesia did not significantly impact 30-day mortality. RA was significantly associated with increased likelihood of early discharge (HR 1.09; P< 0.001), 47% lower odds of intraoperative complications, and 24% lower odds of respiratory complications. RA was also associated with 16% lower odds of developing deep vein thrombosis and 15% lower odds of developing any one postoperative complication (OR 0.85; P < 0.001). There was no evidence of an effect of anaesthesia technique on postoperative MI, stroke, renal complications, pulmonary embolism or peripheral nerve injury. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for clinical and patient characteristic confounders, RA was associated with significantly lower odds of several postoperative complications, decreased hospital length of stay, but not mortality when compared with GA.

Paravertebral Block Does Not Reduce Cancer Recurrence, but Is Related to Higher Overall Survival in Lung Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative analgesic methods are suggested to have an impact on long-term prognosis after cancer surgery through opioid-induced immune suppression. We hypothesized that regional analgesia that reduces the systemic opioid requirement would be related to lower cancer recurrence and higher overall survival compared to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for lung cancer surgery. METHODS: Records for all patients who underwent open thoracotomy for curative resection of primary lung cancer between 2009 and 2013 in a tertiary care hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided by postoperative analgesic methods: PCA (n = 574), thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA, n = 619), or paravertebral block (PVB, n = 536). Overall and recurrence-free survivals were compared among 3 analgesic methods via a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model and a log-rank test after adjusting confounding factors using propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Analgesic method was associated with overall survival (P= .0015; hazard ratio against TEA [95% confidence intervals]: 0.58 [0.39-0.87] for PCA, 0.60 [0.45-0.79] for PVB). After confounder adjustment using PSM, PVB showed higher overall survival than PCA (log-rank P= .0229) and TEA (log-rank P= .0063) while PCA and TEA showed no difference (log-rank P= .6). Hazard ratio for PVB was 0.66 [0.46-0.94] against PCA and 0.65 [0.48-0.89] against TEA after PSM. However, there was no significant association between the analgesic methods and recurrence-free survival (P= .5; log-rank P with PSM = .5 between PCA and TEA, .5 between PCA and PVB, .1 between TEA and PVB). CONCLUSIONS: Pain-control methods are not related to cancer recurrence. However, PVB may have a beneficial effect on overall survival of patients with lung cancer.

Neuraxial and Combined Neuraxial/General Anesthesia Compared to General Anesthesia for Major Truncal and Lower Limb Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Neuraxial anesthesia may improve perioperative outcomes when compared to general anesthesia; however, this is controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using randomized controlled trials and population-based observational studies identified in MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE from 2010 to May 31, 2016. Studies were included for adult patients undergoing major surgery of the trunk and lower extremity that reported: 30-day mortality (primary outcome), cardiopulmonary morbidity, surgical site infection, thromboembolic events, blood transfusion, and resource use. Perioperative outcomes were compared with general anesthesia for the following subgroups: combined neuraxial-general anesthesia and neuraxial anesthesia alone. Odds ratios (ORs) and 99% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to identify the impact of anesthetic technique on outcomes. Twenty-seven observational studies and 11 randomized control trials were identified. This analysis comprises 1,082,965 records from observational studies or databases and 1134 patients from randomized controlled trials. There was no difference in 30-day mortality identified when combined neuraxial-general anesthesia was compared with general anesthesia (OR 0.88; 99% CI, 0.77-1.01), or when neuraxial anesthesia was compared with general anesthesia (OR 0.98; 99% CI, 0.92-1.04). When combined neuraxial-general anesthesia was compared with general anesthesia, combined neuraxial-general anesthesia was associated with a reduced odds of pulmonary complication (OR 0.84; 99% CI, 0.79-0.88), surgical site infection (OR 0.93; 99% CI, 0.88-0.98), blood transfusion (OR 0.90; 99% CI, 0.87-0.93), thromboembolic events (OR 0.84; 99% CI, 0.73-0.98), length of stay (mean difference -0.16 days; 99% CI, -0.17 to -0.15), and intensive care unit admission (OR 0.77; 99% CI, 0.73-0.81). For the combined neuraxial-general anesthesia subgroup, there were increased odds of myocardial infarction (OR 1.18; 99% CI, 1.01-1.37). There was no difference identified in the odds of pneumonia (OR 0.94; 99% CI, 0.87-1.02) or cardiac complications (OR 1.04; 99% CI, 1.00-1.09) for the combined neuraxial-general anesthesia subgroup. When neuraxial anesthesia was compared to general anesthesia, there was a decreased odds of any pulmonary complication (OR 0.38; 99% CI, 0.36-0.40), surgical site infection (OR 0.76; 99% CI, 0.71-0.82), blood transfusion (OR 0.85; 99% CI, 0.82-0.88), thromboembolic events (OR 0.79; 99% CI, 0.68-0.91), length of stay (mean difference -0.29 days; 99% CI, -0.29 to -0.28), and intensive care unit admission (OR 0.50; 99% CI, 0.48-0.53). There was no difference in the odds of cardiac complications (OR 0.99; 99% CI, 0.94-1.03), myocardial infarction (OR 0.91; 99% CI, 0.81-1.02), or pneumonia (OR 0.92; 99% CI, 0.84-1.01). Randomized control trials revealed no difference in requirement for blood transfusion (RR 1.05; 99% CI, 0.65-1.71) and a decreased length of stay (mean difference -0.15 days; 99% CI, -0.27 to -0.04). Neuraxial anesthesia when combined with general anesthesia or when used alone was not associated with decreased 30-day mortality. Neuraxial anesthesia may improve pulmonary outcomes and reduce resource use when compared with general anesthesia. However, because observational studies were included in this analysis, there is a risk of residual confounding and therefore these results should be interpreted with caution.

Outcome Analysis of Carotid Cross-Clamp Intolerance during Carotid Endarterectomy under Locoregional Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: To analyze the predictors and describe the outcomes of cross-clamp intolerance (CCI) and the results of the use of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with shunting or a shift strategy to immediate carotid artery stenting (CAS) in this setting. METHODS: Between January 2008 and December 2015, 385 patients were elected for single-sided, isolated CEA under locoregional anesthesia. In case of CCI, CEA with shunt was used selectively, whereas indication to immediate conversion to CAS was the immediate onset and severe persistent deterioration of the neurologic status, and/or local technical difficulties to perform endarterectomy. Primary outcome was prevention of death and all early (<30 days) perioperative cerebrovascular events. RESULTS: We treated 169 (43.9%) symptomatic lesions; urgent (≤48 hours) intervention was performed in 85 (22.1%) cases. Carotid CCI occurred in 45 (11.7%) patients. CEA with shunt was used in 16, whereas CAS in 27 (7.0%, 2 refused further treatment). Multivariable analysis identified hypertension (odds ratio [OR]: 2.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-8.52; P = 0.049) and symptomatic lesions (OR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.11-4.93; P = 0.025) as significant predictors of CCI. In-hospital mortality rate was 0.5%; none occurred in CCI group. Postoperative cerebrovascular event rate was 2.3% (n = 9). At multivariable analyses, only CCI (OR: 6.60, 95% CI: 1.65-26.36; P = 0.008) was significantly associated with postoperative cerebrovascular events, with no significant different clinical outcomes between CEA and CAS. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension and symptomatic carotid stenosis were significant predictors of CCI, which was found to be predictive for postoperative cerebrovascular events. In selected patients with CCI, CAS had satisfactory, similar results of CEA.