Comparing outcomes of general anesthesia and monitored anesthesia care during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The Cleveland Clinic Foundation experience
- PMID: 33512085
- DOI: 10.1002/ccd.29496
Comparing outcomes of general anesthesia and monitored anesthesia care during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The Cleveland Clinic Foundation experience
Erratum in
-
Erratum to "Comparing outcomes of general anesthesia and monitored anesthesia care during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The Cleveland Clinic Foundation experience".Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Nov;100(6):1138-1142. doi: 10.1002/ccd.30409. Epub 2022 Oct 4. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022. PMID: 36193703 No abstract available.
Abstract
Background: Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) has become more widely used during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to avoid the complications of general anesthesia (GA).
Methods: We included consecutive patients who underwent transfemoral-TAVR at our institution between January 2012 and April 2017. We compared outcomes with GA versus MAC.
Results: Of 998 patients, MAC was used in 43.9%. MAC was associated with shorter procedural time (96.9 ± 30.9 vs. 135 ± 64.6 mins; p < .001), fluoroscopy time (20.4 ± 8.9 vs. 29 ± 18.7 mins; p < .001), lower contrast volume (45.5 ± 27 vs. 60.4 ± 43 cc; p < .001), and decreased radiation exposure (12,869 ± 8,099 vs. 20,630 ± 16,276 cGy-cm2 ; p < .001). Patients who underwent MAC had a briefer median (IQR) intensive care unit stay [23.3 (21-24) vs. 23.4 (20.8-26) hrs; p < .001], and hospital stay [2 (2, 3) vs. 3 (2-6) days; p < .001], and were more frequently discharged to home (93.4% vs. 82.9%; p < .001). MAC was associated with lower mortality at 30 days (0.5% vs. 2.9%; log-rank p = .012; adjHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.82; p = .024), but not at 1 year (11.7% vs. 14.6%; log-rank p = .157) or 3 years (36.8% vs. 38.4%; log-rank p = 0.433). There were no differences in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at either 30 days (4.6% vs. 9.3%; log-rank p = .14) or 1 year (21.1% vs. 21.5%; log-rank p = .653). Similar findings were seen among patients who received newer-generation SAPIEN-3 valves.
Conclusion: Utilizing MAC and omitting intraprocedural transesophageal echocardiography during TAVR seems to be more efficient without compromising safety. Better TAVR outcomes can be achieved with newer generation valves without needing GA.
Keywords: GA; MAC; TAVR; conscious sedation; general anesthesia; monitored anesthesia care.
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1695-1705.
-
- Popma JJ, Deeb GM, Yakubov SJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1706-1715.
-
- Flier S, Bainbridge DD. Is sedation for TAVR really safer than a general anesthetic? J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2019;33:3292-3293.
-
- Hyman MC, Vemulapalli S, Szeto WY, et al. Conscious sedation versus general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Society of thoracic surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Circulation. 2017;136:2132-2140.
-
- Villablanca PA, Mohananey D, Nikolic K, et al. Comparison of local versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;91:330-342.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous
