Dexmedetomidine Is an Equal Cost Alternative to Propofol in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement, With Equivalent In-Hospital and 30-Day Outcomes

The association between different anesthetic techniques and outcomes in patients undergoing transfemoral aortic valve replacement

Background

There is an increasing number of patients undergoing transfemoral aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with sedation. There is limited data assessing the efficacy and safety of the different types of sedative drugs. The objective was to compare two sedation techniques with regard to the need for vasoactive support, respiratory support, rate of conversion to general anesthesia (GA), common perioperative morbidities, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and in-hospital mortality.

Methods

A retrospective chart review study conducted among patients who underwent TAVR at a specialized cardiac center between January 2016 and December 2019. Data collection included patient diagnosis, preoperative comorbidities, intraoperative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes.

Results

A total of 289 patients received local anesthesia; 210 received propofol infusion and 79 received a mixed propofol-ketamine infusion (Ketofol). The average age was 75.5 ± 8.9 years and 58.1% of the patients were females. Comparing propofol and ketofol groups, 31.2% and 34.2% of the patients required drug support, 7.6% and 6.3% required conversion to GA, 46.7% and 59.5% required respiratory support, respectively. These intraoperative outcomes were not significantly different between groups, P = 0.540, P = 0.707, and P = 0.105, respectively. In-hospital 30-day mortality in propofol and ketofol groups were 1.9% and 3.8%, respectively, P = 0.396. In both groups, the median post-procedure coronary care unit stay was 26 hours while post-procedure hospital stay was 3 days.

Conclusions

There were no significant differences in perioperative or postoperative outcomes in TAVR patients receiving either propofol or ketofol. Propofol infusion, either alone or with ketamine, is reliable and safe, with minimal side effects.

Optimizing Anesthetic Selection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Striking a Delicate Balance between Efficacy and Minimal Intervention

Patients with severe calcific native aortic valve stenosis (AS) who require valve replacement have two options, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). TAVR was approved in late 2011 for extremely high-risk patients and was subsequently approved for high-risk (2012), intermediate-risk (2016), and low-risk (2019) patients. In 2019, TAVR procedures surpassed SAVR procedures for the first time in the United States. The approach to anesthesia for this procedure has also evolved. Initially, general anesthesia (GA) was preferred, but currently, conscious sedation (CS) is favored. This review aims to clarify the indications and contraindications for both approaches, as well as the advantages of one approach over the other. Recent studies show that conscious sedation has better outcomes in terms of all-cause mortality, procedure complications such as stroke, myocardial infarction, infection requiring antibiotics, acute kidney injury, and the need for inotropes or vasopressors.

Comparison of Procedural Sedation With Propofol and Dexmedetomidine During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Using the Transfemoral Approach

OBJECTIVES

Although procedural sedation is an established method of anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), reliable evidence to guide the choice of a suitable sedative agent remains scarce. Accordingly, this trial aimed to compare the effect of procedural sedation with dexmedetomidine versus propofol on postoperative neurocognitive and related clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

SETTING

The study was conducted at the University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Slovenia.

PARTICIPANTS

The study enrolled 78 patients who underwent TAVR under procedural sedation between January 2019 and June 2021. Seventy-one patients randomized into the propofol group (n = 34) and dexmedetomidine group (n = 37) were included in the final analysis.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients in the propofol group received sedation with propofol (continuous intravenous infusion of 0.5-2.5 mg/kg/h), whereas patients in the dexmedetomidine group received sedation with dexmedetomidine (loading dose of 0.5 µg/kg over 10 minutes followed by continuous intravenous infusion of 0.2-1.0 µg/kg/h).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Minimental state examination (MMSE) was performed before and 48 hours after TAVR. There was no statistically significant difference in MMSE scores between groups before TAVR (p = 0.253), but the MMSE after the procedure revealed a significantly lower incidence of delayed neurocognitive recovery (p = 0.005) and thus better cognitive outcomes in the dexmedetomidine group (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with propofol, procedural sedation with dexmedetomidine in TAVR was associated with a significantly lower incidence of delayed neurocognitive recovery.

Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Cardiac Surgery Patients

ABSTRACT

Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 adrenoreceptor agonist that is widely used as a sedative medication, is becoming more and more attractive in clinical application on cardiac surgery patients. In this review, we aim to summarize and discuss both retrospective studies and clinical trials regarding the effect of dexmedetomidine on patients who underwent cardiac surgery (including coronary artery bypass grafting, valve surgery, aortic surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention, and so on), which illustrates that the clinical effects of dexmedetomidine could effectively reduce mortality, major complications, and the intensive care unit and hospital length of stay without comprising safety. In addition, inconsistent results from both retrospective studies and clinical trials have also been demonstrated. Although the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine on cardiac surgery patients is suggested, high-quality clinical trials are needed for further verification.

Propofol Versus Remifentanil Sedation for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Single Academic Center Experience

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of remifentanil versus propofol for sedation during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures to analyze the risk of sedation-related hypoxemia and hypotension. Secondary outcomes included the rate of conversion to general anesthesia, procedure length, rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, and 30-day mortality.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A single tertiary teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred fifty-nine patients who had propofol or remifentanil sedation for TAVR between March 2017 and March 2020.

INTERVENTION

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There were 130 patients (50.2%) in the propofol cohort and 129 patients (49.8%) in the remifentanil cohort. The primary outcomes were oxygen saturation nadir values and vasopressor infusion use. Remifentanil was associated with a lower oxygen saturation nadir, as compared to propofol (91.3% v . 95.4%, p < 0.001). Risk factors associated with hypoxemia (defined as <92%) were body mass index (p = 0.0004), obstructive sleep apnea (p = 0.004), and remifentanil maintenance (p < 0.001). Vasopressor infusion use was significantly higher with propofol (64.9% v . 8.5%, p < 0.001). Propofol maintenance and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor-blocker use were the only variables identified as risk factors for vasopressor use (p < 0.001 and p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing TAVR with conscious sedation, remifentanil was associated with more hypoxemia while propofol was associated with a higher rate of vasopressor use.

Anaesthesia for minimally invasive cardiac procedures in the catheterization lab

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The share of cardiac procedures performed in settings involving nonoperating room anaesthesia (NORA) continues to grow rapidly, and the number of publications related to anaesthetic techniques in cardiac catheterization laboratories is substantial. We aim to summarize the most recent evidence about outcomes related to type of anaesthetic in minimally invasive cardiac procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

The latest studies, primarily focused on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr), demonstrate the need for reliable monitoring and appropriate training of the interdisciplinary teams involved in this high-risk NORA setting.

SUMMARY

Inappropriate sedation and concurrent inadequate oxygenation are main risk factors for claims involving NORA care. Current evidence deriving from TAVR shows that monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) is associated with shorter length of stay and lower mortality.