Long-term Survival after Volatile or Propofol General Anesthesia for Bladder Cancer Surgery: A Retrospective National Registry Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Prospective interventional trials and retrospective observational analyses provide conflicting evidence regarding the relationship between propofol versus inhaled volatile general anesthesia and long-term survival after cancer surgery. Specifically, bladder cancer surgery lacks prospective clinical trial evidence. METHODS: Data on bladder cancer surgery performed under general anesthesia between 2014 and 2021 from the National Quality Registry for Urinary Tract and Bladder Cancer and the Swedish Perioperative Registry were record-linked. Overall survival was compared between patients receiving propofol or inhaled volatile for anesthesia maintenance. The minimum clinically important difference was defined as a 5-percentage point difference in 5-yr survival. RESULTS: Of 7,571 subjects, 4,519 (59.7%) received an inhaled volatile anesthetic, and 3,052 (40.3%) received propofol for general anesthesia maintenance. The two groups were quite similar in most respects but differed in American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status and tumor stage. Propensity score matching was used to address treatment bias. Survival did not differ during follow-up (median, 45 months [interquartile range, 33 to 62 months]) in the full unmatched cohort nor after 1:1 propensity score matching (3,052 matched pairs). The Kaplan-Meier adjusted 5-yr survival rates in the matched cohort were 898 of 3,052, 67.5% (65.6 to 69.3%) for propofol and 852 of 3,052, 68.5% (66.7 to 70.4%) for inhaled volatile general anesthesia, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.15]; P = 0.332). A sensitivity analysis restricted to 1,766 propensity score-matched pairs of patients who received only one general anesthetic during the study period did not demonstrate a difference in survival; Kaplan-Meier adjusted 5-yr survival rates were 521 of 1,766, 67.1% (64.7 to 69.7%) and 482 of 1,766, 68.9% (66.5 to 71.4%) for propofol and inhaled volatile general anesthesia, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.23]; P = 0.139). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing bladder cancer surgery under general anesthesia, there was no statistically significant difference in long-term overall survival associated with the choice of propofol or an inhaled volatile maintenance.

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes. METHODS: Included clinical trials investigated goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery and reported at least one patient-centred postoperative outcome. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles on March 8, 2021. Two investigators performed abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and bias assessment. The primary outcomes were mortality and hospital length of stay, whereas 15 postoperative complications were included based on availability. From a main pool of comparable trials, meta-analyses were performed on trials with homogenous outcome definitions. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). RESULTS: The main pool consisted of 76 trials with intermediate risk of bias for most outcomes. Overall, goal-directed haemodynamic therapy might reduce mortality (odds ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.09) and shorten length of stay (mean difference=-0.72 days; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.35) but with low certainty in the evidence. For both outcomes, larger effects favouring goal-directed haemodynamic therapy were seen in abdominal surgery, very high-risk surgery, and using targets based on preload variation by the respiratory cycle. However, formal tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy decreased risk of several postoperative outcomes, but only infectious outcomes and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia might decrease mortality, hospital length of stay, and several postoperative complications. Only infectious postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty in the evidence.

Early Postoperative Outcomes of Super Morbid Obese Compared to Morbid Obese Patients After Ambulatory Surgery Under General Anesthesia: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of a National Database.

BACKGROUND: Patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥50 kg/m2, defined as super morbid obesity, represent the fastest growing segment of patients with obesity in the United States. It is currently unknown if super morbid obese patients are at greater odds than morbid obese patients for poor outcomes after outpatient surgery. The main objective of the current investigation is to assess if super morbid obese patients are at increased odds for postoperative complications after outpatient surgery when compared to morbid obese patients. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database from 2017 to 2018 was queried to extract and compare patients who underwent outpatient surgery and were defined as either morbidly obese (BMI >40 and <50 kg/m2) or super morbidly obese (BMI ≥50 kg/m2). The primary outcome was the occurrence of medical adverse events within 72 hours of discharge. In addition, we also examine death and readmissions as secondary outcomes. A propensity-matched analysis was used to evaluate the association of BMI ≥50 kg/m2 versus BMI between 40 and 50 kg/m2 and the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 661,729 outpatient surgeries were included in the 2017-2018 NSQIP database. Of those, 7160 with a BMI ≥50 kg/m2 were successfully matched to 7160 with a BMI <50 and ≥40 kg/m2. After matching, 17 of 7160 (0.24%) super morbid obese patients had 3-day medical complications compared to 15 of 7160 (0.21%) morbid obese patients (odds ratio [OR; 95% confidence interval {CI}] = 1.13 [0.57-2.27], P = .72). The rate of 3-day surgical complications in super morbid obese patients was also not different from morbid obese patients. Thirty-five of 7160 (0.48%) super morbid obese patients were readmitted within 3 days, compared to 33 of 7160 (0.46%) morbid obese patients (OR [95% CI] = 1.06 [0.66-1.71], P = .80). When evaluated in a multivariable analysis as a continuous variable (1 unit increase in BMI) in all patients, BMI ≥40 kg/m2 was not significantly associated with overall medical complications (OR [95% CI] = 1.00 [0.98-1.04], P = .87), overall surgical complication (OR [95% CI] = 1.02 [0.98-1.06], P = .23), or readmissions (OR [95% CI] = 0.99 [0.97-1.02], P = .8). CONCLUSIONS: Super morbid obesity is not associated with higher rates of early postoperative complications when compared to morbid obese patients. Specifically, early pulmonary complications were very low after outpatient surgery. Super morbid obese patients should not be excluded from outpatient procedures based on a BMI cutoff alone.

Long-term Survival after Combined Epidural-General Anesthesia or General Anesthesia Alone: Follow-up of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Experimental and observational research suggests that combined epidural-general anesthesia may improve long-term survival after cancer surgery by reducing anesthetic and opioid consumption and by blunting surgery-related inflammation. This study therefore tested the primary hypothesis that combined epidural-general anesthesia improves long-term survival in elderly patients. METHODS: This article presents a long-term follow-up of patients enrolled in a previous trial conducted at five hospitals. Patients aged 60 to 90 yr and scheduled for major noncardiac thoracic and abdominal surgeries were randomly assigned to either combined epidural-general anesthesia with postoperative epidural analgesia or general anesthesia alone with postoperative intravenous analgesia. The primary outcome was overall postoperative survival. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific, recurrence-free, and event-free survival. RESULTS: Among 1,802 patients who were enrolled and randomized in the underlying trial, 1,712 were included in the long-term analysis; 92% had surgery for cancer. The median follow-up duration was 66 months (interquartile range, 61 to 80). Among patients assigned to combined epidural-general anesthesia, 355 of 853 (42%) died compared with 326 of 859 (38%) deaths in patients assigned to general anesthesia alone: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.24; P = 0.408. Cancer-specific survival was similar with combined epidural-general anesthesia (327 of 853 [38%]) and general anesthesia alone (292 of 859 [34%]): adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.28; P = 0.290. Recurrence-free survival was 401 of 853 [47%] for patients who had combined epidural-general anesthesia versus 389 of 859 [45%] with general anesthesia alone: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.12; P = 0.692. Event-free survival was 466 of 853 [55%] in patients who had combined epidural-general anesthesia versus 450 of 859 [52%] for general anesthesia alone: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.12; P = 0.815. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients having major thoracic and abdominal surgery, combined epidural-general anesthesia with epidural analgesia did not improve overall or cancer-specific long-term mortality. Nor did epidural analgesia improve recurrence-free survival. Either approach can therefore reasonably be selected based on patient and clinician preference.

Regional Anaesthesia for Lower Extremity Amputation is Associated with Reduced Post-operative Complications Compared with General Anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: Primary and secondary lower extremity amputation, performed for patients with lower extremity arterial disease, is associated with increased post-operative morbidity. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of regional anaesthesia vs. general anaesthesia on post-operative pulmonary complications. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 45 492 patients undergoing lower extremity amputation between 2005 and 2018 was conducted using data from the American College of Surgeons National Safety Quality Improvement Program database. Multivariable logistic regression was carried out to assess differences in primary outcome of post-operative pulmonary complications (pneumonia or respiratory failure requiring re-intubation) within 48 hours and 30 days after surgery between patients receiving regional (RA) or general anaesthesia (GA). Secondary outcomes included post-operative blood transfusion, septic shock, re-operation, and post-operative death within 30 days. RESULTS: Of 45 492 patients, 40 026 (88.0%) received GA and 5 466 (12.0%) RA. Patients who received GA had higher odds of developing pulmonary complications at 48 hours (2.1% vs. 1.4%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09 - 1.78; p = .007) and within 30 days (6.3% vs. 5.9%; aOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.09 - 1.78; p = .039). The odds of blood transfusions (aOR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02 - 1.21; p = .017), septic shock (aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03 - 1.60; p = .025) and re-operation (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.03 - 1.53; p = .023) were also higher for patients who received GA vs. patients who received RA. No difference in mortality rate was observed between patients who received GA and those who received RA (5.7% vs. 7.1%; odds ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 - 1.07). CONCLUSION: A statistically significant reduction in pulmonary complications was observed in patients who received RA for lower extremity amputation compared with GA.

Epidural Anesthesia-Analgesia and Recurrence-free Survival after Lung Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia and analgesia reduce the stress response to surgery and decrease the need for volatile anesthesia and opioids, thereby preserving cancer-specific immune defenses. This study therefore tested the primary hypothesis that combining epidural anesthesia-analgesia with general anesthesia improves recurrence-free survival after lung cancer surgery. METHODS: Adults scheduled for video-assisted thoracoscopic lung cancer resections were randomized 1:1 to general anesthesia and intravenous opioid analgesia or combined epidural-general anesthesia and epidural analgesia. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (time from surgery to the earliest date of recurrence/metastasis or all-cause death). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (time from surgery to all-cause death) and cancer-specific survival (time from surgery to cancer-specific death). Long-term outcome assessors were blinded to treatment. RESULTS: Between May 2015 and November 2017, 400 patients were enrolled and randomized to general anesthesia alone (n = 200) or combined epidural-general anesthesia (n = 200). All were included in the analysis. The median follow-up duration was 32 months (interquartile range, 24 to 48). Recurrence-free survival was similar in each group, with 54 events (27%) with general anesthesia alone versus 48 events (24%) with combined epidural-general anesthesia (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.35; P = 0.608). Overall survival was also similar with 25 events (13%) versus 31 (16%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.96; P = 0.697). There was also no significant difference in cancer-specific survival with 24 events (12%) versus 29 (15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.91; P = 0.802). Patients assigned to combined epidural-general had more intraoperative hypotension: 94 patients (47%) versus 121 (61%; relative risk, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.55; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural anesthesia-analgesia for major lung cancer surgery did not improve recurrence-free, overall, or cancer-specific survival compared with general anesthesia alone, although the CI included both substantial benefit and harm.

The Role of Anesthesiologists in Perioperative Limitation of Potentially Life-Sustaining Medical Treatments: A Narrative Review and Perspective.

No patient arrives at the hospital to undergo general anesthesia for its own sake. Anesthesiology is a symbiont specialty, with the primary mission of preventing physical and psychological pain, easing anxiety, and shepherding physiologic homeostasis so that other care may safely progress. For most elective surgeries, the patient-anesthesiologist relationship begins shortly before and ends after the immediate perioperative period. While this may tempt anesthesiologists to defer goals of care discussions to our surgical or primary care colleagues, we have both an ethical and a practical imperative to share this responsibility. Since the early 1990s, the American College of Surgeons (ACS), the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and the Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses (AORN) have mandated a "required reconsideration" of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Key ethical considerations and guiding principles informing this "required reconsideration" have been extensively discussed in the literature and include respect for patient autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. In this article, we address how well these principles and guidelines are translated into daily clinical practice and how often anesthesiologists actually discuss goals of care or potential limitations to life-sustaining medical treatments (LSMTs) before administering anesthesia or sedation. Having done so, we review how often providers implement goal-concordant care, that is, care that reflects and adheres to the stated patient wishes. We conclude with describing several key gaps in the literature on goal-concordance of perioperative care for patients with limitations on LSMT and summarize novel strategies and promising efforts described in recent literature to improve goal-concordance of perioperative care.

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.

General anaesthesia related mortality in a limited resource settings region: a retrospective study in two teaching hospitals of Butembo.

BACKGROUND: General anaesthesia (GA) in developing countries is still a high-risk practice, especially in Africa, accompanied with high morbidity and mortality. No study has yet been conducted in Butembo in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to determine the mortality related to GA practice. The main objective of this study was to assess mortality related to GA in Butembo. METHODS: This was a retrospective descriptive and analytic study of patients who underwent surgery under GA in the 2 main teaching hospitals of Butembo from January 2011 to December 2015. Data were collected from patients files, anaesthesia registries and were analysed with SPSS 26. RESULTS: From a total of 921 patients, 539 (58.5%) were male and 382 (41.5%) female patients. A total of 83 (9.0%) patients died representing an overall perioperative mortality rate of 90 per 1000. Out of the 83 deaths, 38 occurred within 24 h representing GA related mortality of 41 per 1000. There was a global drop in mortality from 2011 to 2015. The risk factors of death were: being a neonate or a senior adult, emergency operation, ASA physical status > 2 and a single deranged vital sign preoperatively, presenting any complication during GA, anaesthesia duration > 120 minutes as well as visceral surgeries/laparotomies. Ketamine was the most employed anaesthetic. CONCLUSION: GA related mortality is very high in Butembo. Improved GA services and outcomes can be obtained by training more anaesthesia providers, proper patients monitoring, improved infrastructure, better equipment and drugs procurement and considering regional anaesthesia whenever possible.

Anesthesia Type is Associated with Decreased Cranial Nerve Injury in Carotid Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia modalities for carotid endarterectomy continue to vary nationally. We evaluated and compared short-term outcomes after carotid endarterectomy with general anesthesia (GA) and regional anesthesia (RA) in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. METHODS: The 2011-2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Data Files (PUFs) with merged Vascular Procedure-Targeted PUFs for carotid endarterectomy were queried for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy. Postoperative complications, mortality, and hospital length of stay in patients undergoing GA or RA were compared. RESULTS: A total of 14,447 patients were evaluated: 12,389 (85.7%) with GA and 2,058 (14.3%) with RA. The use of GA was inversely associated with patients' age (88.0% in patients aged 22-64 years vs. 83.4% in patients aged ≥80 years, P < 0.0001) and with symptomatic presentation (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-1.38). There were no differences between GA and RA for in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, or postoperative complications of transient ischemic attack, stroke, bleeding, acute renal failure, or restenosis. However, rates of cranial nerve injury were significantly higher in GA than in RA (2.9% vs. 1.7%, respectively; P < 0.002) and confirmed by multivariable analysis (OR = 1.68; 95% CI: 1.19-2.39). Total operative time was also longer for GA than for RA (median: 115 minutes; Interquartile range (IQR): 89-145 versus median: 93 minutes; IQR: 76-119, respectively; P < 0.0001). Hospital length of stay was greater in GA than in RA (median: 1 day; IQR 1-2 vs. median: 1 day; IQR 1-1, respectively; P < 0.0001), as were 30-day readmission rates (6.7% vs. 5.4%, respectively; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Iatrogenic nerve injury is a feared complication of carotid endarterectomy, especially in elective asymptomatic patients. RA reduces the rate of cranial nerve injury compared with GA. RA is also not inferior to GA for postoperative complications with the benefit of shorter operative times, lengths of hospital stay, and decreased 30-day readmission rates. Consideration should be given to more widespread adoption of this underused anesthesia modality.

Trends of hospital-based surgery for varicose veins in the elderly.

OBJECTIVE: The treatment of varicose veins has shifted during the past decade to the office setting. Although recent studies have demonstrated the safety of venous ablation for the elderly in the office, a paucity of data is available on the contemporary outcomes of surgery for varicose veins in the operating room. The present study analyzed the trends and outcomes of varicose vein surgery in the elderly using a large national database. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Initiative Program database (2005-2017) was reviewed. Patients undergoing vein ablation or open surgery (ie, high ligation, stripping, phlebectomy) for venous insufficiency were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes and the principal diagnosis. The patients were stratified into 3 age groups <65, 65 to 79, and ≥80 years. The preoperative and operative characteristics and outcomes were compared. Logistic regression was performed to identify the risk factors associated with any adverse event, defined as any morbidity or mortality. RESULTS: A total of 48,615 venous surgeries had been performed, with 9177 (18.9%) performed in patients aged 65 to 79 years and 1180 (2.4%) in patients aged ≥80 years. The proportion of patients in the 65- to 79-age group had steadily increased during the study period from 12.8% in 2005 to 22.3% in 2017 (P < .01). The proportion of patients aged ≥80 years had remained stable (P = .23). Patients aged ≥80 years had significantly more comorbidities, were more likely to have undergone vein ablation alone (P < .01), were more likely to be treated for ulceration (P < .01) and less likely to have received general anesthesia (P < .01) compared with the younger age groups. Overall morbidity increased significantly with increased age group (P < .01) but remained low (2.5%). Mortality was very low (0.02%) and not significantly different among the age groups. The factors independently associated with any adverse event were dialysis (odds ratio [OR], 7.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3-15.6), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification per unit increase (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.02-1.3), use of general anesthesia (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4), and combined venous ablation and open procedures compared with venous ablation alone (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5). However, age was not associated with adverse events (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 1.0-1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Varicose vein surgery is safe for all age groups and is being increasingly offered to the elderly. High-risk patients might benefit from the avoidance of hybrid procedures and general anesthesia when possible to minimize the occurrence of adverse events. Conservative measures should be exhausted before surgery for the dialysis population.

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.

Endograft type and anesthesia mode are associated with mortality of endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair has become the primary treatment modality for ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. This study examines the impact of endograft type on perioperative outcomes for ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. METHOD: The targeted endovascular aneurysm repair files of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2012-2017) were used. Only patients treated for ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm were included. All patients requiring concomitant stenting of the visceral arteries or aneurysmal iliac arteries or open abdominal surgery were excluded. The characteristics of patients treated with the different endografts and the corresponding outcomes were compared using Stata software. RESULTS: There were 479 patients treated with the three most common endografts: Cook Zenith (n = 127), Gore Excluder (n = 239), and Medtronic Endurant (n = 113). The number of other endografts was too small for statistical analysis. Compared to patients treated with Excluder or Endurant, the patients treated with Zenith had significantly lower body mass index (P < .001) and were less likely to be white (P < .001). On the other hand, patients treated with Endurant were less likely to be smoker (P = .016). Patients treated with Zenith had significantly larger ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter (P = .045). The overall mortality was 18% and morbidity 74.3%. There was a statistically significant difference in overall mortality (Zenith = 11.8%, Excluder = 18%, Endurant = 24.8%, P = .033) but not morbidity (P = .808) between the three groups. Post hoc analysis for overall mortality showed only significant difference between Zenith and Endurant. The difference in mortality was not significant in patients presenting with ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm without hypotension (P = .065). On multivariable analysis, treatment with the Endurant endograft was associated with increased mortality compared to Zenith (odds ratio = 3.0 [confidence interval 1.31-6.7]). General anesthesia (odds ratio = 2.67 [confidence interval 1.02-7.02]), rupture with hypotension (odds ratio = 4.49 [confidence interval 2.54-7.95]), and dependent functional status (odds ratio = 5.7 [confidence interval 1.96-16.59]) were independently associated with increased mortality while increasing body mass index (odds ratio = 0.97 [confidence interval 0.95-0.99]) was associated with reduced risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights contemporary outcomes of endovascular aneurysm repair for ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm with relatively low mortality. Endograft type and anesthesia technique are modifiable factors that can potentially improve outcomes. Significant variation in the outcomes of the different endografts warrants further research.

Regional Anesthesia is Underutilized for Carotid Endarterectomy Despite Improved Perioperative Outcomes Compared with General Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: The choice of anesthetic for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) continues to be controversial. Recent literature suggests improved outcomes with the use of regional anesthesia (RA) compared with general anesthesia (GA). The objective of this study was to examine the utilization and outcomes of RA for CEA using a national database. METHODS: The targeted CEA files of the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2011-2017) were reviewed. Patients were stratified based on anesthesia type into RA and GA, and patients' characteristics were compared between the 2 groups. The outcomes of CEA under GA and RA were compared after 2:1 propensity matching. RESULTS: There were 26,206 CEAs, and 14% (n = 3,664) were performed under RA, with no change in relative utilization during the study period (P = 0.557). Patients treated under RA were more likely to be older than 65 years (80.6% vs. 75.8%; P < 0.001) and White (90.8% vs. 83.5%; P < 0.001) but less likely to have diabetes (28.2% vs. 31.2%; P = 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (10.2% vs. 10.5%; P < 0.001), and heart failure (1.0% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.02) and be symptomatic (37.4% vs. 42.7%; P < 0.001). After matching, there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Patients undergoing RA were less likely to experience the combined end point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or mortality compared with GA. GA patients were more likely to have longer operating time and hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: CEA performed under RA is associated with improved outcomes compared with GA. RA is underutilized in carotid surgery, and strategies to optimize its use are needed.

Influence of Anesthetic Techniques on Perioperative Outcomes after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to explore the influence of anesthetic techniques on perioperative outcomes after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a Chinese population. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed in patients after elective EVAR for infrarenal AAA at our single center. Patients were classified into general anesthesia (GA), regional anesthesia (RA), and local anesthesia (LA) groups. The primary outcomes (30-day mortality and morbidity) and secondary outcomes [procedure time, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and length of hospital stay (LOS)] were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: From January 2006 to December 2015, 486 consecutive patients underwent elective EVAR at our center. GA was used in 155 patients (31.9%), RA in 56 (11.5%), and LA in 275 (56.6%). The GA patients had fewer respiratory comorbidities, shorter and more angulated proximal necks, and more concomitant iliac aneurysms. LA during EVAR was significantly associated with a shorter procedure time (GA, P < 0.001; RA, P < 0.001) and shorter LOS (GA, P = 0.002; RA, P = 0.001), but a higher MAP (GA, P < 0.001; RA, P < 0.001) compared with GA and RA. LA was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiac (odds ratio (OR) 4.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-15.04), pulmonary (OR 5.37, 95% CI 1.58-18.23), and systemic complications (OR 4.15, 95% CI 1.85-9.33) compared with GA. RA was also associated with a decreased risk of systemic complications (OR 4.74, 95% CI 1.19-18.92) compared with GA. There was no difference in the 30-day mortality, neurologic complications, renal complications, and intraoperative extra procedures among the 3 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthetic techniques for EVAR have no influence on the 30-day mortality. LA for EVAR appears to be beneficial concerning the procedure time, LOS, and 30-day systemic complications for patients after elective EVAR for infrarenal AAA in the Chinese population.

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

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

Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Variation in Practice and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to examine variation in the use of conscious sedation (CS) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) across hospitals and over time and to evaluate outcomes of CS compared with general anesthesia (GA) using instrumental variable analysis, a quasi-experimental method to control for unmeasured confounding. BACKGROUND: Despite increasing use of CS for TAVR, contemporary data on utilization patterns are lacking, and existing studies evaluating the impact of sedation choice on outcomes may suffer from unmeasured confounding. METHODS: Among 120,080 patients in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry who underwent transfemoral TAVR between January 2016 and March 2019, the relationship between anesthesia choice and TAVR outcomes was evaluated using hospital proportional use of CS as an instrumental variable. RESULTS: Over the study period, the proportion of TAVR performed using CS increased from 33% to 64%, and CS was used in a median of 0% and 91% of cases in the lowest and highest quartiles of hospital CS use, respectively. On the basis of instrumental variable analysis, CS was associated with decreases in in-hospital mortality (adjusted risk difference: 0.2%; p = 0.010) and 30-day mortality (adjusted risk difference: 0.5%; p < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (adjusted difference: 0.8 days; p < 0.001), and more frequent discharge to home (adjusted risk difference: 2.8%; p < 0.001) compared with GA. The magnitude of benefit for most endpoints was less than in a traditional propensity score-based approach, however. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary U.S. practice, the use of CS for TAVR continues to increase, although there remains wide variation across hospitals. The use of CS for TAVR is associated with improved outcomes (including reduced mortality) compared with GA, although the magnitude of benefit appears to be less than in previous studies.

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.

Short-term outcomes of combined neuraxial and general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: retrospective population-based cohort study†.

BACKGROUND: Use of neuraxial anaesthesia for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is postulated to reduce mortality and morbidity. This study aimed to determine the 90-day outcomes after elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients receiving combined general and neuraxial anaesthesia vs general anaesthesia alone. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted from 2003 to 2016. All patients ≥40 yr old undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair were included. The propensity score was used to construct inverse probability of treatment weighted regression models to assess differences in 90-day outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 10 447 elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs were identified; 9003 (86%) patients received combined general and neuraxial anaesthesia and 1444 (14%) received general anaesthesia alone. Combined anaesthesia was associated with significantly lower hazards for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.61) and major adverse cardiovascular events (HR=0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86). Combined patients were at lower odds for acute kidney injury (odds ratio [OR]=0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.89), respiratory failure (OR=0.41; 95% CI, 0.36-0.47), and limb complications (OR=0.30; 95% CI, 0.25-0.37), with higher odds of being discharged home (OR=1.32; 95% CI, 1.15-1.51). Combined anaesthesia was also associated with significant mechanical ventilation and ICU and hospital length of stay benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Combined general and neuraxial anaesthesia in elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is associated with reduced 90-day mortality and morbidity. Neuraxial anaesthesia should be considered as a routine adjunct to general anaesthesia for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

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.