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.

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.

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.

Association between neuraxial anaesthesia or general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery in adults and clinical outcomes: population based comparative effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations between neuraxial anaesthesia or general anaesthesia and clinical outcomes, length of hospital stay, and readmission in adults undergoing lower limb revascularisation surgery. DESIGN: Comparative effectiveness study using linked, validated, population based databases. SETTING: Ontario, Canada, 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2015. PARTICIPANTS: 20 988 patients Ontario residents aged 18 years or older who underwent their first lower limb revascularisation surgery in hospitals performing 50 or more of these surgeries annually. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was 30 day all cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital cardiopulmonary and renal complications, length of hospital stay, and 30 day readmissions. Multivariable, mixed effects regression models, adjusting for patient, procedural, and hospital characteristics, were used to estimate associations between anaesthetic technique and outcomes. Robustness of analyses were evaluated by conducting instrumental variable, propensity score matched, and survival sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Of 20 988 patients who underwent lower limb revascularisation surgery, 6453 (30.7%) received neuraxial anaesthesia and 14 535 (69.3%) received general anaesthesia. The percentage of neuraxial anaesthesia use ranged from 0.6% to 90.6% across included hospitals. Furthermore, use of neuraxial anaesthesia declined by 17% over the study period. Death within 30 days occurred in 204 (3.2%) patients who received neuraxial anaesthesia and 646 (4.4%) patients who received general anaesthesia. After multivariable, multilevel adjustment, use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with use of general anaesthesia was associated with decreased 30 day mortality (absolute risk reduction 0.72%, 95% confidence interval 0.65% to 0.79%; odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.83; number needed to treat to prevent one death=139). A similar direction and magnitude of association was found in instrumental variable, propensity score matched, and survival analyses. Use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with use of general anaesthesia was also associated with decreased in-hospital cardiopulmonary and renal complications (odds ratio 0.73, 0.63 to 0.85) and a reduced length of hospital stay (-0.5 days, -0.3 to-0.6 days). CONCLUSIONS: Use of neuraxial anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery was associated with decreased 30 day mortality and hospital length of stay. These findings might have been related to reduced cardiopulmonary and renal complications after neuraxial anaesthesia and support the increased use of neuraxial anaesthesia in patients undergoing these surgeries until the results of a large, confirmatory randomised trial become available.

Prognostic effect of the new 5-factor modified frailty index in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy with regional anesthesia - A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Frailty has been studied as a valuable predictor of adverse health events and poor postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing surgery. Thus, the use of simple and adapted indexes to define frailty, like the modified frailty index (mFI)-11, proved useful in assessing patients undergoing vascular surgery. However, the literature about the applicability of an even more pragmatic index, the modified frailty (mFI) index mFI-5 in vascular patients is scarce, particularly in those submitted to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). This study aimed to validate and estimate the prognostic value of the mFI-5 on the postoperative period and long-term survival of this population. METHODS: From January 2011 to June 2019, 184 patients from a tertiary care referral center who underwent CEA with regional anesthesia for carotid artery stenosis were selected from a previous prospectively mantained cohort database. Clinical adverse events such as stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), acute heart failure (AHF), and all-cause mortality were assessed 30-days post-procedure and in the subsequent long-term surveillance period. mFI-5 was applied to this population to evaluate the impact of frailty on mortality and morbidity. RESULTS: The mFI-5 was significantly associated with increased risk of long-term MI (P < 0.001), AHF (P = 0.043), major adverse cardiovascular events (P = 0.001) and mortality (P < 0.001). Concerning major adverse limb events and stroke survival, mFI-5 did not reveal statistical significance. The mFI-5 was not able to predict 30-day postoperative adverse events. CONCLUSION: The mFI-5 has demonstrated to be a potential index tool capable of easily stratifying patients and predicting outcomes in the long-term and add therapeutic value in the future. The mFI-5 provides a means of rapidly comparing the comorbidity charge between cohorts.

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.

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.

Comparison of general anaesthesia and regional anaesthesia in terms of mortality and complications in elderly patients with hip fracture: a nationwide population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of anaesthesia on postoperative outcome in elderly patients who underwent hip fracture surgery. SETTING: Nationwide National Health Insurance Sharing Service database of Korea. PARTICIPANTS: All patients aged ≥65 years old who underwent hip fracture surgery, covered by the Korean National Health Insurance, between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Hip fracture surgery under general anaesthesia (group GA) or regional anaesthesia (group RA), with a principal diagnosis of femoral fracture. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the anaesthetic-type effect on 30-day mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative delirium requiring pharmacological intervention. RESULTS: Among the 96 289 patients who underwent hip fracture surgery, 25 593 and 70 696 patients received GA and RA, respectively. After propensity score matching, 25 593 remained in each group. Postmatching mortality was lower in the RA than in the GA group (574 (2.24%) vs 654 (2.55%), p=0·0047, 95% CI -0.0099 to 0.0159). Delirium incidence was lower in the RA than in the GA group (5187 (20.27%) vs 5828 (22.77%), p<0·0001, 95% CI 0.019 to 0.045). The incidence of intensive care unit stay and ventilator care was lower in the RA than in the GA group (5838 (22.1%) vs 8055 (31.47%), p<0·0001, 95% CI 0.046 to 0.070 and 459 (1.73%) vs 1207 (4.72%), p<0·0001, 95% CI -0.0024 to 0.023, respectively). CONCLUSION: RA was associated with better outcomes than GA, in terms of mortality, delirium, intensive care unit admission and ventilator care, in elderly patients who underwent hip fracture surgery.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of Anesthesia on Hospital Mortality and Morbidities in Geriatric Patients Following Emergency Hip Fracture Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of anesthesia type on in-hospital mortality and morbidity for geriatric fragility hip fracture surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Integrates health care delivery system across 38 facilities in the United States. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: We identified 16,695 patients 65 years of age and older who underwent emergent hip fracture repairs between 2009 and 2014 through the Kaiser Permanente hip fracture registry and excluded pathologic or bilateral fractures. INTERVENTION: Hip fracture surgery with general or regional anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Data on in-hospital mortality, time to death, discharge disposition, and length of stay (LOS) were analyzed among the following anesthesia types: general anesthesia (GA), regional anesthesia (RA), and intraoperative conversions from regional to general (Cv). RESULTS: Compared with RA, the hazard ratio for GA for in-hospital mortality was 1.38 and 2.23 for the Cv group; the time ratio for GA-associated time to death was 0.97 and 0.89 for the Cv group. The GA-associated time ratio for LOS before discharge was 1.01, and the hazard ratio for home discharge was 0.86, but no significance was found with the Cv group. CONCLUSIONS: RA may offer advantages over GA for fragility hip fracture surgeries when possible. In-hospital mortality, time to death, increased LOS, and discharge to an institute rather than home were all adversely influenced by GA. Furthermore, the previously understudied Cv group demonstrated adverse outcomes for in-hospital mortality and time to death. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

The Third American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Practice Advisory on Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity: Executive Summary 2017.

The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine's Third Practice Advisory on local anesthetic systemic toxicity is an interim update from its 2010 advisory. The advisory focuses on new information regarding the mechanisms of lipid resuscitation, updated frequency estimates, the preventative role of ultrasound guidance, changes to case presentation patterns, and limited information related to local infiltration anesthesia and liposomal bupivacaine. In addition to emerging information, the advisory updates recommendations pertaining to prevention, recognition, and treatment of local anesthetic systemic toxicity. WHAT'S NEW IN THIS UPDATE?: This interim update summarizes recent scientific findings that have enhanced our understanding of the mechanisms that lead to lipid emulsion reversal of LAST, including rapid partitioning, direct inotropy, and post-conditioning. Since the previous practice advisory, epidemiological data have emerged that suggest a lower frequency of LAST as reported by single institutions and some registries, nevertheless a considerable number of events still occur within the general community. Contemporary case reports suggest a trend toward delayed presentation, which may mirror the increased use of ultrasound guidance (fewer intravascular injections), local infiltration techniques (slower systemic uptake), and continuous local anesthetic infusions. Small patient size and sarcopenia are additional factors that increase potential risk for LAST. An increasing number of reported events occur outside of the traditional hospital setting and involve non-anesthesiologists.

The Mechanisms Underlying Lipid Resuscitation Therapy.

The experimental use of lipid emulsion for local anesthetic toxicity was originally identified in 1998. It was then translated to clinical practice in 2006 and expanded to drugs other than local anesthetics in 2008. Our understanding of lipid resuscitation therapy has progressed considerably since the previous update from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, and the scientific evidence has coalesced around specific discrete mechanisms. Intravenous lipid emulsion therapy provides a multimodal resuscitation benefit that includes both scavenging (eg, the lipid shuttle) and nonscavenging components. The intravascular lipid compartment scavenges drug from organs susceptible to toxicity and accelerates redistribution to organs where drug (eg, bupivacaine) is stored, detoxified, and later excreted. In addition, lipid exerts nonscavenging effects that include postconditioning (via activation of prosurvival kinases) along with cardiotonic and vasoconstrictive benefits. These effects protect tissue from ischemic damage and increase tissue perfusion during recovery from toxicity. Other mechanisms have diminished in favor based on lack of evidence; these include direct effects on channel currents (eg, calcium) and mass-effect overpowering a block in mitochondrial metabolism. In this narrative review, we discuss these proposed mechanisms and address questions left to answer in the field. Further work is needed, but the field has made considerable strides towards understanding the mechanisms.