Regional anesthesia for vascular surgery

Patient selection in ambulatory surgery

Patient selection is important for ambulatory surgical practices. Proper patient selection for ambulatory practices will optimize resources and lead to increased patient and provider satisfaction. As the number and complexity of procedures in ambulatory surgical centers increase, it is important to ensure that patients are best cared for in facilities that can provide appropriate levels of care. This review addresses the multiple variables and resources that should be considered when selecting patients for anesthesia in ambulatory centers and offices.

Anesthetic management for lower extremity vascular bypass procedures: The impact of general or regional anesthesia on clinical outcomes

PURPOSE

Postoperative complications after major surgery, especially vascular procedures, are associated with a significant increase in costs and mortality. Previous studies evaluating general anesthesia versus regional or neuraxial anesthesia for infrainguinal bypass have produced conflicting results. The main aim of the present study is to review current evidence on the application of regional or general anesthesia in patients undergoing infrainguinal bypass surgery and its potential favorable effects on postoperative outcomes.

CONTENTS

Patients undergoing vascular surgery often have multiple comorbidities, and it is important to outline both benefits and risks of regional anesthesia techniques. Neuraxial anesthesia in vascular surgery allows overall avoidance of general anesthesia and does provide short-term benefits beyond analgesia. Previous observational studies suggest that neuraxial anesthesia for lower limb revascularization may reduce morbidity and length of stay. However, evidence of long-term benefits is lacking in most procedures and further work is still warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuraxial anesthesia is usually an effective anesthesia technique for infrainguinal bypass surgery. Elderly patients and those with underlying respiratory problems may display some benefit from neuraxial anesthesia. Further evaluation within institutions should be performed to identify which patients would most benefit from regional techniques. Notably, systemic antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapy is common among this population and may affect anesthetic choices.

Utilization and Outcomes of Local Anesthesia and Peripheral Nerve Block for Hybrid Lower Extremity Revascularization

Purpose: To investigate the utilization of local anesthesia or peripheral nerve block with monitored anesthesia care (LPMAC) and its impact on the perioperative outcomes of hybrid lower extremity revascularization (LER) compared with general anesthesia (GA). Materials and Methods: A search of the ACS-NSQIP database between 2005 and 2017 identified 9430 patients who underwent hybrid LER for peripheral artery disease. Excluding 449 ineligible cases left 8981 hybrid LER patients for analysis. The patients were dichotomized based on the anesthetic technique: 8631 (96.1%) GA and 350 (3.9%) LPMAC. The GA patients were matched 3:1 based on propensity scores to patients in the LPMAC group based on gender, age, race, functional status, transfer status, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dialysis status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, emergent surgery, preoperative sepsis, indication, and type of open and endovascular procedure. Outcomes including complications, mortality, procedure time, and hospital length of stay were compared between the matched groups (801 GA vs 267 LPMAC). Results: Comparing the unmatched groups, those treated under LPMAC were older (72.7±9 vs 68±8.4 years, p<0.001) and had higher rates of COPD (24.3% vs 17%, p=0.001), dialysis dependence (8.1% vs 4.2%, p=0.002), preoperative sepsis (6.6% vs 4.2%, p=0.029), and ASA class ≥IV (29.1% vs 24.1%, p=0.036) than in the unmatched GA cohort. In the matched comparison, LPMAC was associated with lower overall morbidity (25.5% vs 32.3%, p=0.042) and shorter operating time (202.7±98 vs 217.7±102 minutes, p=0.034) compared with GA. The rate of myocardial infarction was lower (1.1% vs 2.4%) and ventilator use for >48 hours was less frequent (0.4% vs 2.6%) for LPMAC patients, though statistical significance was not reached. There was no difference in mortality or hospital length of stay. Conclusion: LPMAC is an infrequent anesthetic technique for hybrid LER and is primarily used for patients with a high burden of comorbidities. LPMAC is associated with reduced overall morbidity and operating time. Further studies are needed to identify which patients undergoing hybrid LER benefit most from LPMAC.

Lower extremity bypass with tumescent local anesthesia

Lower extremity bypass is most commonly performed for the treatment of critical limb ischemia. These patients often pose high surgical risk secondary to significant clinical comorbidities. These risks may be compounded when general anesthesia is considered. We present the case of a patient at high anesthesia risk with critical limb ischemia who was unable to receive general anesthesia or neuraxial blockade. An infrainguinal bypass was performed using tumescent anesthesia with minimal intravenous sedation. The patient was discharged 6 days later, and his postoperative course was complicated by a groin lymphocele. Tumescent local anesthesia is a possible alternative pain management strategy for patients undergoing lower extremity bypass surgery.