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

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

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

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

Routine minimalist transcatheter aortic valve implantation with local anesthesia only.

AIMS: Conscious sedation instead of general anesthesia has been increasingly adopted in many centers for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Improvement of materials and operators' experience and reduction of periprocedural complications allowed procedural simplification and adoption of a minimalist approach. With this study, we sought to assess the feasibility and safety of transfemoral TAVR routinely performed under local anesthesia without on-site anesthesiology support. METHODS: The routine transfemoral TAVR protocol adopted at our center includes a minimalist approach, local anesthesia alone with fully awake patient, anesthesiologist available on call but not in the room, and direct transfer to the cardiology ward after the procedure. All consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR between January 2015 and July 2018 were included. We assessed the rates of actual local anesthesia-only procedures, conversion to conscious sedation or general anesthesia and 30-day clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Among 321 patients, 6 received general anesthesia upfront and 315 (98.1%) local anesthesia only. Mean age of the local anesthesia group was 83.2 ±â€Š6.9 years, Society of Thoracic Surgery score 5.8 ±â€Š4.8%. A balloon-expandable valve was used in 65.7%. Four patients (1.3%) shifted to conscious sedation because of pain or anxiety; 6 patients (1.9%) shifted to general anesthesia because of procedural complications. Hence, local anesthesia alone was possible in 305 patients (96.8% of the intended cohort, 95% of all transfemoral procedures). At 30 days, in the intended local anesthesia group, mortality was 1.6%, stroke 0.6%, major vascular complications 2.6%. Median hospital stay was 4 days (IQR 3-7). CONCLUSION: Transfemoral TAVR can be safely performed with local anesthesia alone and without an on-site anesthesiologist in the vast majority of patients.

The study of transcarotid artery revascularization under local versus general anesthesia with results from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this study was to examine any potential difference in clinical outcomes between transcarotid artery revascularization performed under local anesthesia compared with general anesthesia by utilizing a large national database. METHODS: The primary outcome of the study was a composite endpoint of postoperative in-hospital stroke, myocardial infarction and mortality following transcarotid artery revascularization for the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included a composite outcome of postoperative in-hospital stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction and mortality along with several subsets of its components and each individual component, flow reversal time (min), radiation dose (GY/cm2), contrast volume utilized (mL), total procedure time (min), extended total length of stay (>1 day) and extended postoperative length of stay (>1 day). Statistical analyses employed both descriptive measures to characterize the study population and analytic measures such as multivariable mixed-effect linear and logistic regressions using both unmatched and propensity-score matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 2609 patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization between the years 2016 and 2018 in the US were identified, with 82.3% performed under general anesthesia and 17.7% under local anesthesia. The primary composite outcome was observed in 2.3% of general anesthesia patients versus 2.6% of local anesthesia patients (p = 0.808). The rate of postoperative transient ischemic attack and/or myocardial infarction was 1.6% with general anesthesia versus 1.1% with local anesthesia (p = 0.511). For adjusted regression analysis, general anesthesia and local anesthesia were comparable in terms of primary outcome (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.27-1.93, p = 0.515). As for the secondary outcomes, no significant differences were found except for contrast, where the results demonstrated significantly less need for contrast with procedures performed under general anesthesia (coefficient: 4.94; 95% CI: 1.34-8.54, p = 0.007). A trend towards significance was observed for lower rate of postoperative transient ischemic attack and/or myocardial infarction (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.09-1.18, p = 0.088) and lower flow reversal time under local anesthesia (coefficient: -0.94: 95% CI: -2.1-0.22, p = 0.111). CONCLUSIONS: Excellent outcomes from transcarotid artery revascularization for carotid stenosis were observed in the VQI database between the years 2016 and 2018, under both local anesthesia and general anesthesia. The data demonstrate the choice of anesthesia for transcarotid artery revascularization does not appear to have any effect on clinical outcomes. Surgical teams should perform transcarotid artery revascularization under the anesthesia type they are most comfortable with.

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.

Examination of the interaction between method of anesthesia and shunting with carotid endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Although the choice of anesthesia during carotid endarterectomy (CEA) does not seem to increase the risk of perioperative stroke, it might affect the outcomes of shunting during CEA. This study aims to evaluate whether the choice of anesthesia modifies the association between shunting and in-hospital stroke/death after CEA. METHODS: We retrospective reviewed all CEA cases performed between 2003 and 2017 in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Patients were divided into three groups: (1) no shunting during CEA (n = 29,227 [48.4%]), (2) routine shunting (n = 28,673 [47.5%]), and (3) selective shunting based on an intraoperative indication (n = 2499 [4.1%]). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to study the interaction between anesthesia (local anesthesia [LA]/regional anesthesia [RA] vs general anesthesia [GA]) and intraoperative shunting (no shunting vs routine and selective shunting) during CEA in predicting the risk of in-hospital stroke/death after CEA. RESULTS: The final cohort included 60,399 patients. The majority of CEA cases (90.2%) were performed under GA. Of the study cohort, 29,227 (48.4%) underwent CEA without shunting, 28,673 patients (47.5%) had routine shunting, and the remaining (n = 2499 [4.1%]) were selectively shunted. The interaction between intraoperative shunting and anesthesia in predicting in-hospital stroke/death was statistically significant (P < .05). When CEA is performed under LA/GA, routine shunting was associated with 3.5 times the adjusted odds of in-hospital stroke/death after CEA (odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-6.8; P < .001) compared with no shunting, whereas selective shunting was associated with 7.1 the odds (OR, 7.1; 95% CI, 3.5-14.7; P < .001). In contrast, under GA, there was no significant association between routine shunting and in-hospital stroke/death (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5; P = .12), whereas selective shunting was associated with 1.7 times the odds (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4; P < .01) compared with not performing shunting during CEA. CONCLUSIONS: The use of LA/RA is associated with increased odds of stroke/death compared with GA when intraoperative shunting is performed. The effect of anesthesia is more pronounced in patients who develop clamp-related ischemia and undergo selective shunting. More controlled studies are needed to explain these findings and validate them.

Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Does Anesthesia Type Matter?

BACKGROUND: Given the various types of anesthesia used for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), we sought to determine the effect of anesthesia type in the outcomes of elective EVAR in a large multiinstitutional healthcare maintenance organization. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on all elective EVAR conducted from August 2010 to August 2017 in 14 regional hospitals of Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Patients undergoing emergent, nonelective abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs, thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair, requiring conversion to open surgery or general anesthesia were excluded from the study. Basic demographic information, medical risk factors, anesthesia type, operative data, and postoperative morbidity and mortality data were obtained for univariate and multivariate statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,536 patients underwent EVAR, of which 1,206 met inclusion criteria. A total of 788 patients underwent general anesthesia, 164 patients underwent spinal anesthesia, 82 patients underwent epidural anesthesia, and 172 patients underwent local and monitored anesthesia care (AC). There was a significant difference in length of stay and operative time when comparing local/monitored AC to general anesthesia. No significant difference was noted in 30-day morbidity or mortality among the anesthesia groups. CONCLUSIONS: Local and regional anesthesia is a safe and effective approach for elective EVAR.

Association between the choice of anesthesia and in-hospital outcomes after carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: Several prior studies have shown lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy. This is likely because the majority of endarterectomies are performed under general anesthesia (GA), whereas CAS is mainly performed under local anesthesia (LA). Performing CAS under GA may reverse its minimally invasive benefits. The aim of this study was to compare the safety profile of CAS-GA with that of CAS-LA. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2005 to 2017 was performed. Primary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of in-hospital death and MI, and postoperative neurologic events. Multivariable logistic models, and coarsened exact matching were used to evaluate the association between the primary outcomes and anesthesia technique. RESULTS: Of 12,919 CAS cases performed, 2024 (15.7%) were under GA. Comparing CAS-GA with CAS-LA in the overall cohort, CAS-GA had significantly higher crude rates of in-hospital mortality (2.1% vs 0.5%), MI (1.3% vs 0.7%), composite MACE (3.1% vs 1.2%), and ipsilateral stroke (2.3% vs 1.6%). Patients undergoing CAS-GA also had higher rates of dysrhythmia (3.0% vs 2.2%), acute congestive heart failure (1.6% vs 0.7%) and perioperative hypertension (13.2% vs 9.4%), and were more likely to have a length of hospital stay of more than 4 days (prolonged length of stay) (17.6% vs 8.5%) compared with those undergoing CAS-LA. On multivariable analysis, CAS-GA had a 2.3 times higher odds of in-hospital mortality compared with CAS-LA (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.26-5.03), a 1.9 times the odds of MACE (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.15-3.03), and a 2.3 times the odds of acute congestive heart failure (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.26-4.15; all P < .05). In addition, these patients had a 43% higher odds of developing perioperative hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.09-1.87; P = .01) and almost 2 times the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.41-2.35; P < .001). The adjusted odds of stroke, dysrhythmia and reperfusion syndrome were not significantly different between the two groups. Additional analysis using coarsened exact matching showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the established increase risk of perioperative stroke/death with CAS compared with carotid endarterectomy, performing it under GA seems to be associated with increased cardiac complications, length of stay, and consequently hospitalization costs. Pending future data from prospective, randomized, controlled trials to validate our findings, there is evidence to suggest that it may be better to perform CAS under LA, especially in medically high-risk patients.

Decreased mortality with local versus general anesthesia in endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in the Vascular Quality Initiative database.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an accepted approach for patients presenting with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) and suitable anatomy. The effect of anesthesia modality on mortality outcomes in rAAA has not been well described. Using the Vascular Quality Initiative database, this study compares local anesthesia (LA) vs general anesthesia (GA) in EVAR for rAAA. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients presenting with rAAA managed with open surgical repair, EVAR under LA (rEVAR-LA), and EVAR under GA (rEVAR-GA) between 2003 and 2017. Patients were observed until the earlier end point of either death or 1-year follow-up. Kaplan-Meier event rates are presented at 30 days and 1 year. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model risk of death, with adjustment for demographic and clinical factors. Additional multivariate Cox hazards analyses were used to assess effect modifiers for 1-year mortality for the different repair methods. RESULTS: A total of 3330 patients (77.4% male) met the inclusion criteria (1594 [47.9%] open surgical repair, 226 [6.8%] rEVAR-LA, and 1510 [45.3%] rEVAR-GA). Patients treated with rEVAR-LA compared with rEVAR-GA had decreased intraoperative time, number of intraoperative blood transfusions, intraoperative crystalloid administration, intensive care unit length of stay, and postoperative pulmonary complications. Mortality rates with rEVAR-LA were lower compared with rEVAR-GA at 30 days (15.5% vs 23.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.99; P = .04) and at 1 year (22.5% vs 32.3%; AHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.96; P = .02). Patients undergoing EVAR who were <75 years old and those without preoperative hypotension had the greatest survival benefit from LA compared with GA (both factors: AHR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.03-0.57]; single factor: AHR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.36-0.91]). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that rEVAR-LA for rAAA may be a safe alternative to rEVAR-GA for certain patients, with lower morbidity and improved mortality. Further prospective study is warranted to confirm mortality benefit in rEVAR-LA for rAAA.

Local anaesthesia for endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Case series and a post hoc subgroup analysis of a large randomized trial have suggested a potential benefit in treating ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) using endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with local anaesthesia (LA) rather than general anaesthesia (GA). The uptake and outcomes of LA in clinical practice remain unknown. METHODS: The UK National Vascular Registry was interrogated for patients presenting with rAAA managed with EVAR under different modes of anaesthesia between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included: the number of centres performing EVAR under LA; the proportion of patients receiving this technique; duration of hospital stay; and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Some 3101 patients with rAAA were treated in 72 hospitals during the study: 2306 underwent on open procedure and 795 had EVAR (LA, 319; GA, 435; regional anaesthesia, 41). Overall, 56 of 72 hospitals (78 per cent) offered LA for EVAR of rAAA. Baseline characteristics and morphology were similar across the three EVAR subgroups. Patients who had surgery under LA had a lower in-hospital mortality rate than patients who received GA (59 of 319 (18·5 per cent) versus 122 of 435 (28·0 per cent)), and this was unchanged after adjustment for factors known to influence survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0·62, 95 per cent c.i. 0·45 to 0·85; P = 0·003). Median hospital stay and postoperative morbidity from other complications were similar. CONCLUSION: The use of LA for EVAR of rAAA has been adopted widely in the UK. Mortality rates appear lower than in patients undergoing EVAR with GA.

Local anesthesia for percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is associated with fewer pulmonary complications.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be performed with general anesthesia (GA) or local anesthesia (LA). Our goal was to assess perioperative outcomes comparing anesthesia type in percutaneous EVAR. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all exclusively percutaneous EVAR procedures. Univariable analysis was used to compare which patients were offered LA. Multivariable analysis was used to determine the independent effect of anesthesia type. RESULTS: There were 8141 percutaneous EVARs identified in the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Average age was 73 years, and 83% were male. GA and LA were used in 7387 (90.7%) and 754 (9.3%) cases, respectively. GA was used more often in patients who were younger (72.8 ± 8 vs 74.3 ± 9), white (89% vs 84.5%), and on Medicare (62% vs 61.5%); in patients with higher body mass index (28.3 ± 6 vs 27.3 ± 7), hypertension (81.5% vs 77.8%), diabetes (20.5% vs 17.4%), and previous lower extremity bypass (1.7% vs 0.5%); and in patients undergoing elective repair (86.4% vs 81.3%). Use of GA was associated with lower rates of preoperative congestive heart failure (11.6% vs 16.1%), preoperative anticoagulation (11.7% vs 14.2%), and less use of ultrasound guidance (81.5% vs 88.8%; P < .05). There was no difference in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, previous aneurysm repair, and concomitant iliac aneurysm repair. Multivariable analysis showed that GA compared with LA was associated with more pulmonary complications (odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-5.43; P = .002) and prolonged operative time (means ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.52; P < .001). There was no independent effect on overall complications, cardiac complications, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Although it was used in only 1 in 10 cases of percutaneous EVAR, LA was associated with fewer pulmonary complications after adjustment for patient factors. Surgeons should consider expanding the use of LA for percutaneous EVAR when feasible.

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.

Comparison of local versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is typically performed under general anesthesia (GA). However, there is increasing data supporting the safety of performing TAVR under local anesthesia/conscious sedation (LA). We performed a meta-analysis to gain better understanding of the safety and efficacy of LA versus GA in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. METHODS AND RESULTS: We comprehensively searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Effect sizes were summarized using risk ratios (RRs) difference of the mean (DM), and 95% CIs (confidence intervals) for dichotomous and continuous variables respectively. Twenty-six studies and 10,572 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The use of LA for TAVR was associated with lower overall 30-day mortality (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93; P = 0.01), use of inotropic/vasopressor drugs (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.72; P < 0.001), hospital length of stay (LOS) (DM, -2.09; 95% CI, -3.02 to -1.16; P < 0.001), intensive care unit LOS (DM, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.31 to -0.04; P = 0.01), procedure time (DM, -25.02; 95% CI, -32.70 to -17.35; P < 0.001); and fluoroscopy time (DM, -1.63; 95% CI, -3.02 to -0.24; P = 0.02). No differences were observed between LA and GA for stroke, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury, paravalvular leak, vascular complications, major bleeding, procedural success, conduction abnormalities, and annular rupture. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests that use of LA for TAVR is associated with a lower 30-day mortality, shorter procedure time, fluoroscopy time, ICU LOS, hospital length of stay, and reduced need for inotropic support.

Are Cure Rates for Breast Cancer Improved by Local and Regional Anesthesia?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Recent preclinical basic science studies suggest that patient tumor immunity is altered by general anesthesia (GA), potentially worsening cancer outcomes. A single retrospective review concluded that breast cancer patients receiving paravertebral block and GA had better cancer outcomes compared with patients receiving GA alone. This study has not been validated. We hypothesized that local or regional anesthesia (LRA) would be associated with better cancer outcomes compared with GA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively collected database to identify all stage 0-III breast cancer patients undergoing surgery in a single center during a 9-year period ending January 1, 2010. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those who received only LRA and those who received GA. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local regional recurrence (LRR) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank comparison before and after propensity score matching. RESULTS: Median age of the 1107 patients who met study criteria was 64 years (range, 24-97 years). Median and longest follow-up were 5.5 and 12.5 years, respectively. General anesthesia was used for 461 patients (42%), and 646 (58%) received LRA. The point estimates of cumulative OS, DFS, and LRR "free" rates at 5 years for the GA and LRA groups were 85.5% and 87.1%, 94.2% and 96.1%, and 96.3% and 95.8%, respectively. Cox regression showed no significant differences between the 2 groups (GA and LRA) for the 3 outcomes: OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-1.10; P = 0.17), DFS (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.55-1.76; P = 0.87), and LRR (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.83-3.63; P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer OS, DFS, and LRR were not affected by type of anesthesia in our institution. This result differs from that of the only prior published clinical report on this topic and does not provide clinical corroboration of the basic science studies that suggest oncologic benefits to LRA.

Effects of Anesthesia Type on Perioperative Outcome After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: To examine outcomes of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) using general, regional, or local anesthesia. METHODS: From March 2009 to April 2011, patients were enrolled from 79 sites in 30 countries worldwide and treated with an Endurant Stent Graft System. Data were compared among 3 groups based on the method of anesthesia: general anesthesia (GA) was used in 785 (62%) patients, regional anesthesia (RA) in 331 (27%) patients, and local anesthesia (LA) in 145 (11%) patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for possible confounding factors; outcomes are presented as the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: There were intercontinental differences in the distribution of type of anesthesia used for EVAR. Higher ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) classification was associated with predominant use of GA. Procedure time was reduced in LA (80.4±40.0 minutes) compared with RA (94.2±41.6 min, adjusted p=0.001) and GA (105.3±46.0 minutes, adjusted p<0.001). Intensive care unit (ICU) admission was less frequent for RA than for GA (adjusted OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.97, p=0.030) and LA (adjusted OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.79, p=0.002). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter for RA and LA compared with GA (adjusted p=0.003 and p=0.010, respectively). There were no significant differences in systemic and surgical complications. Mortality rates within 30 days did not differ among the groups. CONCLUSION: Type of anesthesia used during EVAR has no influence on perioperative mortality and morbidity. The use of local or regional anesthesia during EVAR appeared to be beneficial concerning procedure time, ICU admission, and postoperative hospital stay.

Major neonatal surgery under local anesthesia: a cohort study from Bangladesh.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons and anesthetists must respond to the perioperative mortality associated with general anesthesia in developing countries. The safety of performing major neonatal surgery under local anesthesia is one pragmatic response. This study describes and evaluates such practice in a tertiary pediatric surgery center in Bangladesh. METHODS: Seven hundred and twenty neonates were admitted for major surgery during a 3.5-year study period. Hundred and fifty two neonates died pre-operatively, and 568 underwent major neonatal surgery. 352 (62.0%) neonates were operated under general anesthesia, while the 216 most fragile neonates (38.0%) were operated with local infiltrative anesthesia alone. Medical files were reviewed; data were collected prospectively; mortality risk factors were assessed by univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixteen procedures were performed under local anesthesia: sigmoid colostomies (37.5%), laparotomies with anastomosis (21.3%), anoplasties (18.1%), laparotomies with enterostomy (8.3%), closures of abdominal wall defects (6.9%), fixations of silastic bags (3.7%), peritoneal tube drainage (2.3%), and gastrostomies (1.9%). Median weight was 2,400 g (2,200-2,460), median gestational age was 37.0 weeks (36.0-38.0), and median age at surgery was 5.0 days (3.0-14.7). In-hospital postoperative mortality was 10.6% among those selected for local anesthesia, and 11.4% among neonates operated under general anesthesia. Low birth weight was an independent risk factor for mortality on multivariate analysis (OR 1.002 g(-1), 95% CI [1.000-1.004], p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Local anesthesia is an established option for the most fragile neonates with major surgical disease. Safe anesthesia ought to be accessible to all children of the world. The global pandemic of perioperative mortality needs to be addressed.

Local anesthetic systemic toxicity.

Local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) is a rare yet devastating complication from the administration of local anesthesia. The ability to recognize and treat LAST is critical for clinicians who administer these drugs. The authors reviewed the literature on the mechanism, treatment, and prevention of LAST, with the goal of proposing a practical method for its management.

Comparison between local and general anesthesia for carotid endarterectomy: early and late results.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the results between general and local anesthesia (LA) for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). METHODS: Three hundred and twenty-nine patients in whom 365 CEA procedures were performed between January 1990 and September 2001, were included in this study. RESULTS: Operation time, shunt usage rates, hospitalization time (P < .0001), and permanent stroke rates (P < .05) were significantly lower in group with LA. For long-term period (121.3 ± 37.45 vs 98.6 ± 28.98 months), no significant difference was observed in these 2 group with respect to restenosis rates, neurological events, and deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of significant difference between LA and general anesthesia in terms of restenosis, neurological events, and death in the long-term period; LA is more preferable due its associated advantages including availability of testing the consciousness of the patients by direct contact, reduced use of shunts, shorter hospitalization periods, and less prevalence of permanent stroke in the short-term period.

Is there a benefit of awake thoracoscopic surgery in patients with secondary spontaneous pneumothorax?

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to retrospectively compare the outcomes of video-assisted thoracic surgery in awake and anesthetized patients in the treatment of secondary spontaneous pneumothorax. METHODS: A total of 57 consecutive patients who underwent video-assisted thoracic surgery for secondary spontaneous pneumothorax was retrospectively analyzed. Of these patients, 15 underwent surgery under epidural and/or local anesthesia (ELA) and 42 under general anesthesia. Using propensity score matching, we identified comparable patient groups: the ELA group and general anesthesia group (n = 8 each). We compared the duration of operating room stay, operating time, postoperative hematologic data on postoperative day 1, postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, and the incidence of hospital death between the ELA and general anesthesia groups. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, the duration of operating room stay was significantly shorter in the ELA group (P = .006). The incidence of postoperative respiratory complications, including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, was lower in the ELA group (P = .02). The duration of postoperative hospital stay and the incidence of hospital death were not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The ELA group had a lower incidence of postoperative respiratory complications. Awake video-assisted thoracic surgery can be performed with an acceptable overall morbidity for patients with secondary spontaneous pneumothorax.