Locoregional Anesthesia's Association With Reduced Intensive Care Unit Stay After Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair: Impact of Temporal Changes in Practice Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) can be performed via local anesthetics and/or regional (epidural or spinal) anesthesia (locoregional [LR]), versus general anesthesia (GA), conferring reduced intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays. Current analyses fail to account for temporal changes in vascular practice. Therefore, this study aimed to confirm reductions in ICU and hospital stays among LR patients while accounting for changes in practice patterns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Society for Vascular Surgery's Vascular Quality Initiative, elective EVARs from August 2003 to June 2021 were grouped into LR or GA. Outcomes included ICU admission and prolonged hospital stay (>2 d). Procedures were stratified into groups of 2 y periods, and outcomes were analyzed within each time period. Univariable and multivariate analyses were used to assess outcomes. RESULTS: LR was associated with reduced ICU admissions (22.3% versus 32.1%, P < 0.001) and prolonged hospital stays (14.3% versus 7.9%, P < 0.001) overall. When stratified by year, LR maintained its association with reduced ICU admissions in 2014-2015 (21.8% versus 34.0%, P < 0.001), 2016-2017 (23.6% versus 31.6%, P < 0.001), 2018-2019 (18.5% versus 30.2%, P < 0.001), and 2020-2021 (15.8% versus 28.8%, P < 0.001), although this was highly facility dependent. LR was associated with fewer prolonged hospital stays in 2014-2015 (15.6% versus 20.4%, P = 0.001) and 2016-2017 (13.3% versus 16.6%, P = 0.006) but not after 2017. CONCLUSIONS: GA and LR have similar rates of prolonged hospital stays after 2017, while LR anesthesia was associated with reduced rates of ICU admissions, although this is facility-dependent, providing a potential avenue for resource preservation in patients suitable for LR.

Locoregional anesthesia is associated with reduced hospital stay and need for intensive care unit care of elective endovascular aneurysm repair patients in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: It has been shown local or regional anesthetic techniques are a feasible alternative to general anesthesia for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, studies to date have shown controversial findings with respect to the benefit of locoregional anesthesia (LR) in the elective setting. The objective of this study is to compare postoperative outcomes between LR and general anesthesia (GA) in the setting of elective EVAR, using a large, multicenter database. METHODS: Using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative database, we retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent elective EVAR from August 2003 to June 2021. Patients were grouped by anesthetic type based on the level of consciousness afforded by the anesthetic: local or regional anesthesia (LR) vs GA. Primary outcomes were total postoperative hospital length-of-stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS. Propensity score matching was used for risk adjustment and to analyze the primary outcomes with confirmatory analysis using logistic or linear regression, as appropriate, in single and multilevel models. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, postoperative outcomes, operative time, fluoroscopy time, and reoperation rate. These were analyzed following propensity score matching as well as using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard regression in single and multilevel models, as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 50,809 patients underwent elective EVAR from 2003 to 2021. Of these, 4302 repairs used LR (8.5%) and 46,507 (91.5%) were performed under GA. After employing propensity score matching, two groups of 3027 patients were produced. These showed no significant difference in 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.22; P = .53), 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.06; P = .62), or any postoperative outcomes. LR was found to be significantly associated with shorter hospital stays (≤2 days) (12.5% vs 14.8%; P = .01), decreased ICU utilization (19.3% vs 30.6%; P < .001), decreased operative time (110.8 vs 117.3 minutes; P < .001), decreased fluoroscopy time (21.0 vs 22.7 minutes; P < .001), and a slight reduction in reoperation rate (1.2% vs 1.9%; P = .02), which all remained significant following single-level and multilevel multivariate analyses accounting for hospital and physician random effects. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that LR anesthesia is safe and may offer advantages in reducing resource utilization for patients undergoing elective EVAR, primarily based on associations with reduced ICU care and reduced hospital stay. Given these findings, LR may prove an advantageous technique in appropriately selected patient populations.

Left Subclavian Artery Coverage is Not Associated with Neurological Deficits in Trauma Patients Undergoing Thoracic Endovascular Repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair of the thoracic aorta (TEVAR) outcomes have been studied with an interest in complications related to left subclavian artery (LSA) coverage in patients with atherosclerotic pathologies; however, specific data on the management of the LSA in a trauma population are lacking. The objective of this study is to evaluate outcomes following TEVAR for traumatic aortic injury based on LSA coverage. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative thoracic endovascular aortic repair module (2010-2017) was analyzed. Patients were included if they had a traumatic aortic injury requiring TEVAR. Patients were placed in 2 groups based on coverage of the LSA. Patients were propensity score matched and the primary outcomes were cerebrovascular symptoms and spinal cord ischemia. Additional clinical and resource utilization outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty one patients were included in the analysis. There were 268 patients in the LSA not-covered group and 183 patients in the LSA covered group. The mean aortic injury grade was 2.88 ± 0.056 vs. 2.88 ± 0.049 in the covered versus not-covered group (P = 0.957). Glasgow coma scale and injury severity score were not different between the groups. There was no difference between groups for cerebrovascular symptoms or spinal cord ischemia, 1.4% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.684 and 0% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.247, after propensity score matching. Significant differences in access site complications and resource utilization were identified between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series to evaluate complications based on LSA coverage following TEVAR in trauma patients. Our data demonstrate that coverage of the LSA during TEVAR following blunt trauma is associated with no difference in central nervous system outcomes. As such, LSA revascularization strategies, while possible, are not directly supported by these data and should be individualized based on each patient's specific clinical scenario.