General Anesthesia Versus Local Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: For patients with aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a less invasive treatment modality than conventional surgical valve replacement. Although the surgery is performed traditionally under general anesthesia (GA), recent studies have described success with TAVR using local anesthesia (LA) and/or conscious sedation. The study authors performed a pairwise meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of TAVR based on operative anesthesia management. DESIGN: A random effects pairwise meta-analysis via the Mantel-Haenszel method. SETTING: Not applicable, as this is a meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: No individual patient data were used. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable, as this is a meta-analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors comprehensively searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing TAVR performed using LA or GA. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or standard mean differences (SMD) and their 95% CIs. The authors' pooled analysis included 14,388 patients from 40 studies (7,754 LA; 6,634 GA). Compared to GA TAVR, LA TAVR was associated with significantly lower rates of 30-day mortality (RR 0.69; p < 0.01) and stroke (RR 0.78; p = 0.02). Additionally, LA TAVR patients had lower rates of 30-day major and/or life-threatening bleeding (RR 0.64; p = 0.01), 30-day major vascular complications (RR 0.76; p = 0.02), and long-term mortality (RR 0.75; p = 0.009). No significant difference was seen between the 2 groups for a 30-day paravalvular leak (RR 0.88, p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed using LA is associated with lower rates of adverse clinical outcomes, including 30-day mortality and stroke. No difference was seen between the 2 groups for a 30-day paravalvular leak. These results support the use of minimally invasive forms of TAVR without GA.

Opioid-free anesthesia versus opioid-based anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiovascular and thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite their extensive clinical use, opioids are characterized by several side effects. These complications, coupled with the ongoing opioid epidemic, have favored the rise of opioid-free-anesthesia (OFA). Herein, we perform the first pairwise meta-analysis of clinical outcomes for OFA vs opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) in patients undergoing cardiovascular and thoracic surgery. METHODS: We comprehensively searched medical databases to identify studies comparing OFA and OBA in patients undergoing cardiovascular or thoracic surgery. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or standard mean differences (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Our pooled analysis included 919 patients (8 studies), of whom 488 underwent surgery with OBA and 431 with OFA. Among cardiovascular surgery patients, compared to OBA, OFA was associated with significantly reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.57; P = .042), inotrope need (RR .84, P = .045), and non-invasive ventilation (RR, .54; P = .028). However, no differences were observed for 24hr pain score (SMD, -.35; P = .510) or 48hr morphine equivalent consumption (SMD, -1.09; P = .139). Among thoracic surgery patients, there was no difference between OFA and OBA for any of the explored outcomes, including post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.41; P = .025). CONCLUSION: Through the first pooled analysis of OBA vs OFA in a cardiothoracic-exclusive cohort, we found no significant difference in any of the pooled outcomes for thoracic surgery patients. Although limited to 2 cardiovascular surgery studies, OFA was associated with significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting, inotrope need, and non-invasive ventilation in these patients. With growing use of OFA in invasive operations, further studies are needed to assess their efficacy and safety in cardiothoracic patients.