Influence of Type of Fixation and Other Characteristics on Outcome after Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Local versus general anesthesia for endovascular aneurysm repair in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND

In the endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA), there is no effective evidence to show preference for a specific anesthetic option. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the result of different anesthesia in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of RAAA.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies were searched in PubMed, Embase, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were applied to evaluate the quality of cohort studies and RCTs, respectively. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to express differences for primary and secondary outcomes. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were applied in the primary outcome to illustrate the results further. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Random-effects models were used considering limited research regardless of I²  < 50%.

RESULTS

Ten cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. Perioperative mortality was presented as the primary outcome by analyzing eight of these research. Among the included patients, local anesthesia (LA) was considered as a better choice considering perioperative mortality (n = 156/902) rather than general anesthesia (n = 907/3434) with significant difference (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.35-0.67; p < 0.00001; I²  = 42%). However, no significant difference was found in the secondary outcome: the complication rate, ICU admission rate, postoperative morbidity of pneumonia, myocardial infarction, leg ischemia, and wound complication.

CONCLUSIONS

There exists some evidence in this review that LA appears to improve perioperative mortality, especially in hemodynamically stable patients and should be recommended for patients undergoing EVAR with RAAA when appropriate.

A meta-analysis of locoregional anesthesia versus general anesthesia in endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analytic review of studies investigating the effect of the anesthesia modality on perioperative mortality in endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (REVAR).

METHODS

The present meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Multiple electronic databases were comprehensively searched from database inception to January 2020. Eligible studies included cohort studies that reported the 30-day/in-hospital mortality rate or the multivariate adjusted odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio of the mortality risk for patients who underwent emergency REVAR under locoregional anesthesia (LA) vs general anesthesia (GA). A random effects model was used to estimate the ORs by pooling the related data from individual studies.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were included in this analysis. The first meta-analysis of seven studies that reported the 30-day/in-hospital mortality with a total of 3116 patients (867 in the LA group and 2249 in the GA group) revealed that LA was associated with a lower 30-day/in-hospital mortality than GA (16.4% vs 25.4%; unadjusted OR, 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.68). The second meta-analysis of three of these seven studies (including 586 patients in the LA group and 1945 in the GA group) that reported the perioperative variables revealed comparable baseline characteristics but a lower 30-day/in-hospital mortality in the LA group (unadjusted OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42-0.71). The third meta-analysis of the adjusted ORs or hazard ratios that were reported from four studies (including 501 patients in the LA group and 1136 in the GA group) showed a similar trend (adjusted OR,0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

REVAR under LA is associated with a lower 30-day/in-hospital mortality than REVAR under GA. However, because the included studies may have had some observation bias, further randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate the present results.