Comparison of Deep Sedation and General Anesthesia With an Endotracheal Tube for Transcaval Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Pioneering Institution's Experience.

OBJECTIVES: Transcaval transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TC-TAVR) is an alternative approach to transcatheter aortic valve replacement involving deployment of the bioprosthetic valve via a conduit created from the inferior vena cava to the descending aorta in patients for whom the traditional transfemoral approach is not feasible. By analyzing the largest known cohort of TC-TAVR patients, the authors wished to compare hospital length of stay and post-procedure outcomes between patients who underwent the procedure under deep sedation (DS) and patients who underwent general anesthesia with an endotracheal tube. DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center study. SETTING: Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, MI. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing TC-TAVR from 2015 to 2018. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were included in the analysis, which consisted of 38 under general anesthesia with an endotracheal tube and 41 under DS. The sample was divided into a general anesthesia (GA) group and DS group. There were no significant differences in implant success rate or post-procedure outcomes, including in-hospital mortality (p = 0.999) and major vascular complication rate (p = 0.481), between the two groups. Patients in the GA group stayed a median of 24 hours longer in the intensive care unit (ICU) (p < 0.001) and one day longer in the hospital (p = 0.046) after the procedure compared to patients in the DS group. The median procedure time was significantly lower (135 minutes) in the DS group compared to the GA group (167 minutes, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing TC-TAVR under DS had similar postoperative outcomes and shorter post-procedure hospital and ICU lengths of stay compared to general anesthesia. In the authors' experience, DS is the preferred anesthetic technique for TC-TAVR.

Persistent Spinal Headache After Removal of Intrathecal Drug Delivery System: A Case Report and Review of Literature.

INTRODUCTION: To report and discuss the spinal headache following insertion and removal of intrathecal drug delivery system in patients with chronic pain disorders. CASE PRESENTATION: Intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) was initially used for the management of chronic malignant pain; it has since been used to manage pain from other nonmalignant conditions as well. Spinal headache is one of the complications during the trial, permanent placement and after removal of intrathecal drug delivery catheter systems. A 48-year-male patient with chronic pain disorder developed a refractory spinal headache after removing the intrathecal drug delivery system requiring a surgical intervention to resolve the problem. CONCLUSIONS: Conservative management is successful in the vast majority of patients with spinal headache. Interventional procedures are required in a small fraction of patients for symptomatic relief.

A comparison of Truview EVO2 laryngoscope with Macintosh laryngoscope in routine airway management: A randomized crossover clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The Truview EVO2 blade facilitates the view of vocal cords by indirect laryngoscopy and does not require the proper alignment of the oral, pharyngeal and tracheal axes as with the Macintosh blade. METHODS: In a crossover fashion, we prospectively compared the view obtained at laryngoscopy with Truview EVO2 and the Macintosh blade in 110 adult patients of either sex between the age of 18 and 60 years, who were scheduled to undergo general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. The patients were intubated with the second laryngoscope. The preoperative airway variables, laryngoscopic view, difficulty of intubation scale (IDS) score, duration of intubation, and degree of difficulty percentage of glottic opening (POGO score) of use with each laryngoscope were compared. RESULTS: The IDS score was low and comparable between the two laryngoscopes. The laryngeal view was easy; Modified Cormack Lehane (MCL) grade 2a or less in 98.14% of the cases with the Truview laryngoscope compared to 78.7% of the cases with the Macintosh laryngoscope. Nineteen patients of MCL grade 3, one patient of grade 2b, and seven patients of grade 2a view with the Macintosh laryngoscope had MCL grade 1 view with the Truview laryngoscope. The duration of intubation was comparable between Truview and Macintosh laryngoscopes (12.1±3.8 s vs. 10.9±2.1 s). CONCLUSION: Truview laryngoscope performed comparably to Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with normal airway; however, the Truview laryngoscope may be a better option in difficult airway situations when the Macintosh blade fails to show the glottic opening.