Outcome After General Anesthesia Versus Monitored Anesthesia Care in Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) compared with general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). DESIGN: Secondary analysis from the observational and prospective OBSERVANT (OBservational Study of Effectiveness of avR-taVi procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment) study. SETTING: Multicenter study, including Italian hospitals performing TAVR interventions. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand four hundred ninety-four patients with severe and symptomatic aortic stenosis. INTERVENTIONS: Transfemoral TAVR under general or local anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A propensity score procedure was applied, and 310 pairs were matched with similar baseline characteristics (EuroSCORE II: local anesthesia 6.6±5.9% v general anesthesia 7.0±7.7%, p = 0.430). MAC was associated with similar 30-day mortality compared with GA (3.9% v 4.8%, p = 0.564). TAVR was performed under MAC without any increased risk of other adverse events. The risk of paravalvular regurgitation≥mild was similar between the study groups (MAC 49.5% v general anesthesia 57.0%, p = 0.858). Two patients receiving on MAC had severe paravalvular regurgitation, whereas this complication was not observed after GA. Permanent pacemaker implantation was 19.1% in the MAC group v 14.8% in the GA group (p = 0.168). Mean intensive care unit stay was 3.5 days for the GA group v 2.9 days for the MAC group (p = 0.086). A similar 3-year survival rate was observed (MAC 69.4% v GA 69.9%, p = 0.966). CONCLUSIONS: Transfemoral TAVR can be performed under MAC with similar immediate and late outcomes as compared with GA. A possible risk of severe paravalvular regurgitation and pacemaker implantation with TAVR under MAC requires further investigation.

[Final results from four clinical studies in the field of cardiovascular diseases integrated in the "Mattoni del SSN - Mattone Outcome" Project]. / Le sperimentazioni dell'area cardiovascolare del Progetto Mattoni del SSN - Mattone Outcome: risultati finali. Sperimentazione dell'integrazione di fonti informative cliniche e amministrative del Programma PROGRESSI.

Observational outcome studies represent a valid approach to evaluating comparative treatment effectiveness in real populations. The main objective of outcome research is to underline what works and what does not work in the field of health assistance. In 2004 the Italian Ministry of Health launched the Project "Mattone Misura dell'Outcome" aimed at assessing the introduction of procedures and methods for the systematic evaluation of outcomes in the national health system. A new experience, the PROGRESSI program (PROGRamma ESiti per SIVeAS e LEA), started in 2008 with the aim to further develop the methodologies for outcome evaluation. In this Supplement the final results from four clinical studies named "Sperimentazioni dell'area cardiovascolare del Progetto Mattoni" are presented. These studies started between 2005 and 2007 and their main objectives were to evaluate: --the contribution of information from current informative systems and clinical studies in risk-adjustment methodologies; --the advisability of introducing some clinical items in current informative systems to improve outcome estimates; --the goodness of follow-up procedures from current informative systems; and --the role of disease registries in the validation of comparative evaluation measures. The four studies were designed as voluntary prospective multicentre studies. Results concerning the characteristics of the enrolled populations as well as the risk-adjustment models built using information from current informative systems and/or clinical information are presented. As expected, each study produced specific remarks both in terms of clinical findings and contribution of different informative systems to the risk-adjustment models. In general, models built with information from both current informative systems and clinical information show the best performance. Findings from these analyses will provide the public health system with suitable indications to improve statistical methodologies for outcome estimates.