Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Apr 5;12(4):e0173777.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173777. eCollection 2017.

Improved costs and outcomes with conscious sedation vs general anesthesia in TAVR patients: Time to wake up?

William Toppen  1 , Daniel Johansen  2 , Sohail Sareh  2 , Josue Fernandez  2 , Nancy Satou  2 , Komal D Patel  3 , Murray Kwon  2 , William Suh  4 , Olcay Aksoy  4 , Richard J Shemin  2 , Peyman Benharash  2
Affiliations

Improved costs and outcomes with conscious sedation vs general anesthesia in TAVR patients: Time to wake up?

William Toppen et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a commonplace procedure for the treatment of aortic stenosis in higher risk surgical patients. With the high cost and steadily increasing number of patients receiving TAVR, emphasis has been placed on optimizing outcomes as well as resource utilization. Recently, studies have demonstrated the feasibility of conscious sedation in lieu of general anesthesia for TAVR. This study aimed to investigate the clinical as well as cost outcomes associated with conscious sedation in comparison to general anesthesia in TAVR.

Methods: Records for all adult patients undergoing TAVR at our institution between August 2012 and June 2016 were included using our institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) and American College of Cardiology (ACC) registries. Cost data was gathered using the BIOME database. Patients were stratified into two groups according to whether they received general anesthesia (GA) or conscious sedation (CS) during the procedure. No-replacement propensity score matching was done using the validated STS predicted risk of mortality (PROM) as a propensity score. Primary outcome measure with survival to discharge and several secondary outcome measures were also included in analysis. According to our institution's data reporting guidelines, all cost data is presented as a percentage of the general anesthesia control group cost.

Results: Of the 231 patients initially identified, 225 (157 GA, 68 CS) were included for analysis. After no-replacement propensity score matching, 196 patients (147 GA, 49 CS) remained. Overall mortality was 1.5% in the matched population with a trend towards lower mortality in the CS group. Conscious sedation was associated with significantly fewer ICU hours (30 vs 96 hours, p = <0.001) and total hospital days (4.9 vs 10.4, p<0.001). Additionally, there was a 28% decrease in direct cost (p<0.001) as well as significant decreases in all individual all cost categories associated with the use of conscious sedation. There was no difference in composite major adverse events between groups. These trends remained on all subsequent subgroup analyses.

Conclusion: Conscious sedation is emerging as a safe and viable option for anesthesia in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The use of conscious sedation was not only associated with similar rates of adverse events, but also shortened ICU and overall hospital stays. Finally, there were significant decreases in all cost categories when compared to a propensity matched cohort receiving general anesthesia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: William Suh has previously received honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences; however, this does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Consort diagram.
GA = General Anesthesia group. CS = Conscious Sedation group.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Supino PG, Borer JS, Preibisz J, Bornstein A. The Epidemiology of Valvular Heart Disease: a Growing Public Health Problem. Heart Fail Clin. 2006;2(4):379–93. 10.1016/j.hfc.2006.09.010 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Stamato NJ, Lahey SJ, Wechsler A, Jordan D, et al. Utilization and 1-Year Mortality for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in New York Patients With Aortic Stenosis: 2011 to 2012. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(6):578–85. 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.12.022 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med. Massachusetts Medical Society; 2011. June 9;364(23):2187–98. 10.1056/NEJMoa1103510 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, Makkar RR, Svensson LG, Kodali SK, et al. Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med. 2016. April 28;374(17):1609–20. 10.1056/NEJMoa1514616 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arora S, Misenheimer JA, Jones W, Bahekar A, Caughey M, Ramm CJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate risk patients: a meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2016;6(3):241–9. 10.21037/cdt.2016.03.04 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms