Locoregional Anesthesia Has Lower Risks of Cardiac Complications Than General Anesthesia After Prolonged Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

7-1-2024

Journal

Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia

Volume

38

Issue

7

DOI

10.1053/j.jvca.2024.03.025

Keywords

AAA; EVAR; anesthesia; aneurysm; endovascular; general anesthesia; locoregional

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Although general anesthesia is the primary anesthesia in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), some studies suggest locoregional anesthesia could be a feasible alternative for eligible patients. However, most evidence was from retrospective studies and was subjected to an inherent selection bias that general anesthesia is often chosen for more complex and prolonged cases. To mitigate this selection bias, this study aimed to compare 30-day outcomes of prolonged, nonemergent, intact, infrarenal EVAR in patients undergoing locoregional or general anesthesia. In addition, risk factors associated with prolonged operative time in EVAR were identified. DESIGN: Retrospective large-scale national registry study. SETTING: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program targeted database from 2012 to 2022. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4,075 out of 16,438 patients (24.79%) had prolonged EVAR. Among patients with prolonged EVAR, 324 patients (7.95%) were under locoregional anesthesia. There were 3,751 patients (92.05%) under general anesthesia, and 955 of them were matched to the locoregional anesthesia cohort. INTERVENTIONS: Patients undergoing infrarenal EVAR were included. Exclusion criteria included age <18 years, emergency cases, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, and acute intraoperative conversion to open. Only cases with prolonged operative times (>157 minutes) were selected. A 1:3 propensity-score matching was used to address demographics, baseline characteristics, aneurysm diameter, distant aneurysm extent, and concomitant procedures between patients under locoregional and general anesthesia. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes were assessed. Moreover, factors associated with prolonged EVAR were identified by multivariate logistic regression. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Except for general anesthesia contraindications, patients undergoing locoregional or general anesthesia exhibited largely similar preoperative characteristics. After propensity-score matching, patients under locoregional and general anesthesia had a lower risk of myocardial infarction (0.93% v 2.83%, p = 0.04), but comparable 30-day mortality (3.72% v 2.72%, p = 0.35) and other complications. Specific concomitant procedures, aneurysm anatomy, and comorbidities associated with prolonged EVAR were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Locoregional anesthesia can be a safe and effective alternative to general anesthesia, particularly in EVAR cases with anticipated complexity and prolonged operative times, as it offers the potential benefit of reduced cardiac complications. Risk factors associated with prolonged EVAR can aid in preoperative risk stratification and inform the decision-making process regarding anesthesia choice.

Department

Surgery

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS