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.

Periprocedural hypotension after conscious sedation versus local anesthesia during defibrillator implantation for left ventricular dysfunction: analysis of a national inpatient database in Japan.

The association between periprocedural hypotension and conscious sedation (CS) during defibrillator implantation remains to be elucidated. The aim of the present study was to compare the occurrence of periprocedural hypotension after CS or local anesthesia (LA) during defibrillator implantation in a retrospective cohort study using a national inpatient database. Using the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, we retrospectively collected data for adult inpatients who underwent implantation of a cardioverter defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy device from July 2010 to March 2016. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to compare the occurrence of periprocedural hypotension between the CS and LA groups with adjustment for patient background characteristics and hospital factors. Additional analysis was performed after dividing the CS group into each specific anesthetic use. We identified 4842 patients, comprising 1533 patients with CS and 3309 with LA. The CS group had a significantly higher proportion of periprocedural hypotension than the LA group (13.4% versus 9.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-2.04; p = 0.001). Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2, New York Heart Association Class IV, and use of cardiac resynchronization therapy device were independently associated with occurrence of periprocedural hypotension. Additionally, ketamine and dexmedetomidine were significantly associated with higher incidence of hypotension than the LA group (adjusted odds ratio, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-5.26; p = 0.006; adjusted odds ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.12; p = 0.019, respectively). Periprocedural hypotension was significantly more likely to occur in the CS group than the LA group, and was associated with CS.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is local anaesthesia a favourable approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing local and general anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the potential favourable effects of local anaesthesia plus sedation (LAS) compared with general anaesthesia (GA) in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). METHODS: Electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and the reference lists of eligible publications were screened for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published between 1 January 2006 and 26 June 2016 that compare LAS to GA in an adult study population undergoing TAVI. We conducted study quality assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and structured the review according to PRISMA. A meta-analysis calculating the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) under the assumption of a random-effects model was performed. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic and Cochran's Q-test. RESULTS: After database screening, one RCT and 19 observational studies were included in the review. We found no differences between LAS and GA in terms of 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality and other endpoints that addressed safety and complication rates. LAS was associated with a shorter ICU and hospital stay and with lower rates of catecholamine administration and red blood cell transfusion. New pacemaker implantations occurred more frequently under LAS. The overall conversion rate from LAS to GA was 6.2%. CONCLUSION: For TAVI, both LAS and GA are feasible and safe. LAS may have some benefits such as increased haemodynamic stability and shorter hospital and ICU stays, but it does not impact 30-day mortality. Since there is a paucity of randomised trial data and the findings are mainly based on observational study data, this review should be considered as a hypothesis-generating article for subsequent RCTs that are required to confirm the potential favourable effects we detected for LAS. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016048398 (PROSPERO).

Anesthesia-Related Outcomes for Endovascular Stroke Revascularization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is currently controversy on the ideal anesthesia strategy during mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients undergoing general anesthesia (GA group) and those receiving either local anesthesia or conscious sedation (non-GA group). METHODS: A literature search on anesthesia and endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke was performed. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we evaluated the following outcomes: recanalization rate, good functional outcome at 90 days (modified Rankin Score≤2), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, death, vascular complications, respiratory complications, procedure time, and time to groin puncture. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies), including 4716 patients (1819 GA and 2897 non-GA) were included. In the nonadjusted analysis, patients in the GA group had higher odds of death (odds ratio [OR], 2.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66-2.45) and respiratory complications (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.22-2.37) and lower odds of good functional outcome (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.64) compared with the non-GA group. There was no difference in procedure time between the 2 primary comparison groups. When adjusting for baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, GA was still associated with lower odds of good functional outcome (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29-0.94). When considering studies performed in the stent-retriever/aspiration era, there was no significant difference in good neurological outcome rates (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: Acute ischemic stroke patients undergoing intra-arterial therapy may have worse outcomes when treated with GA as compared with conscious sedation/local anesthesia. However, major limitations of current evidence (ie, retrospective studies and selection bias) indicate a need for adequately powered, multicenter randomized controlled trials to answer this question.

Outcome of patients undergoing TAVR with and without the attendance of an anesthesiologist.

BACKGROUND: During the last few years there is a shift from performing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) under general anesthesia towards conscious sedation and local anesthesia only. In the vast majority of centers, sedation is guided by a qualified anesthesiologist. In our center, all TAVR procedures are being performed under local anesthesia and mild sedation, however, since September 2014, a large portion of TAVR procedures are being performed under local anesthesia without the presence of an anesthesiologist. Here we compare 30days outcome of patients undergoing TAVR with and without the presence of anesthesiologist in the catheterization laboratory. METHODS AND RESULTS: From September 2014 through April 2016, 324 patients (mean age 82.8±6) with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis were assigned to transfemoral TAVR with (150 patients) or without (174 patients) the attendance of an anesthesiologist. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were similar between the groups. No difference in procedural and 30-day mortality, vascular complications, and major/life threatening bleeding were observed between the groups (p>0.1, for all). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of an anesthesiologist in the catheterization laboratory during transfemoral TAVR procedures did not significantly change 30-day outcome.