Sedation versus general anesthesia on all-cause mortality in patients undergoing percutaneous procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The comparison between sedation and general anesthesia (GA) in terms of all-cause mortality remains a subject of ongoing debate. The primary objective of our study was to investigate the impact of GA and sedation on all-cause mortality in order to provide clarity on this controversial topic.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, incorporating cohort studies and RCTs about postoperative all-cause mortality. Comprehensive searches were performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, with the search period extending until February 28, 2023. Two independent reviewers extracted the relevant information, including the number of deaths, survivals, and risk effect values at various time points following surgery, and these data were subsequently pooled and analyzed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 58 studies were included in the analysis, with a majority focusing on endovascular surgery. The findings of our analysis indicated that, overall, and in most subgroup analyses, sedation exhibited superiority over GA in terms of in-hospital and 30-day mortality. However, no significant difference was observed in subgroup analyses specific to cerebrovascular surgery. About 90-day mortality, the majority of studies centered around cerebrovascular surgery. Although the overall pooled results showed a difference between sedation and GA, no distinction was observed between the pooled ORs and the subgroup analyses based on RCTs and matched cohort studies. For one-year all-cause mortality, all included studies focused on cardiac and macrovascular surgery. No difference was found between the HRs and the results derived from RCTs and matched cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggested a potential superiority of sedation over GA, particularly in the context of cardiac and macrovascular surgery, mitigating the risk of in-hospital and 30-day death. However, for the longer postoperative periods, this difference remains uncertain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023399151; registered 24 February 2023.

Local versus General Anaesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomised and Propensity-Score Matched Studies

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a common practice for severe aortic stenosis, but the choice between general (GA) and local anesthesia (LA) remains uncertain. We conducted a comprehensive literature review until April 2023, comparing the safety and efficacy of LA versus GA in TAVI procedures. Our findings indicate significant advantages of LA, including lower 30-day mortality rates (RR: 0.69; 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]; p < 0.001), shorter in-hospital stays (mean difference: -0.91 days; 95% CI [-1.63, -0.20]; p = 0.01), reduced bleeding/transfusion incidents (RR: 0.64; 95% CI [0.48, 0.85]; p < 0.01), and fewer respiratory complications (RR: 0.56; 95% CI [0.42, 0.76], p<0.01). Other operative outcomes were comparable. Our findings reinforce prior evidence, presenting a compelling case for LA's safety and efficacy. While patient preferences and clinical nuances must be considered, our study propels the discourse towards a more informed anaesthesia approach for TAVI procedures.

General Anesthesia Versus Local Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

For patients with aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a less invasive treatment modality than conventional surgical valve replacement. Although the surgery is performed traditionally under general anesthesia (GA), recent studies have described success with TAVR using local anesthesia (LA) and/or conscious sedation. The study authors performed a pairwise meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of TAVR based on operative anesthesia management.

DESIGN

A random effects pairwise meta-analysis via the Mantel-Haenszel method.

SETTING

Not applicable, as this is a meta-analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

No individual patient data were used.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable, as this is a meta-analysis.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The authors comprehensively searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing TAVR performed using LA or GA. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or standard mean differences (SMD) and their 95% CIs. The authors' pooled analysis included 14,388 patients from 40 studies (7,754 LA; 6,634 GA). Compared to GA TAVR, LA TAVR was associated with significantly lower rates of 30-day mortality (RR 0.69; p < 0.01) and stroke (RR 0.78; p = 0.02). Additionally, LA TAVR patients had lower rates of 30-day major and/or life-threatening bleeding (RR 0.64; p = 0.01), 30-day major vascular complications (RR 0.76; p = 0.02), and long-term mortality (RR 0.75; p = 0.009). No significant difference was seen between the 2 groups for a 30-day paravalvular leak (RR 0.88, p = 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed using LA is associated with lower rates of adverse clinical outcomes, including 30-day mortality and stroke. No difference was seen between the 2 groups for a 30-day paravalvular leak. These results support the use of minimally invasive forms of TAVR without GA.

Conscious sedation/monitored anesthesia care versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis

Background

To compare the merits and safety between conscious sedation/monitored anesthesia (CS/MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) for patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Measurements

Databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to October 2022 to identify studies investigating the impact of CS/MAC on peri-procedural and prognostic outcomes compared to those with GA. The primary outcome was the association of CS/MAC with the risk of 30-day mortality, while secondary outcomes included the risks of adverse peri-procedural (e.g., vasopressor/inotropic support) and post-procedural (e.g., stroke) outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed based on study design [i.e., cohort vs. matched cohort/randomized controlled trials (RCTs)].

Main results

Twenty-four studies (observational studies, n = 22; RCTs, n = 2) involving 141,965 patients were analyzed. Pooled results revealed lower risks of 30-day mortality [odd ratios (OR) = 0.66, p < 0.00001, 139,731 patients, certainty of evidence (COE): low], one-year mortality (OR = 0.72, p = 0.001, 4,827 patients, COE: very low), major bleeding (OR = 0.61, p = 0.01, 6,888 patients, COE: very low), acute kidney injury (OR = 0.71, p = 0.01, 7,155 patients, COE: very low), vasopressor/inotropic support (OR = 0.25, p < 0.00001, 133,438 patients, COE: very low), shorter procedure time (MD = -12.27 minutes, p = 0.0006, 17,694 patients, COE: very low), intensive care unit stay (mean difference(MD) = -7.53 h p = 0.04, 7,589 patients, COE: very low), and hospital stay [MD = -0.84 days, p < 0.00001, 19,019 patients, COE: very low) in patients receiving CS/MAC compared to those undergoing GA without significant differences in procedure success rate, risks of cardiac-vascular complications (e.g., myocardial infarction) and stroke. The pooled conversion rate was 3.1%. Results from matched cohort/RCTs suggested an association of CS/MAC use with a shorter procedural time and hospital stay, and a lower risk of vasopressor/inotropic support.

Conclusion

Compared with GA, our results demonstrated that the use of CS/MAC may be feasible and safe in patients receiving TAVR. However, more evidence is needed to support our findings because of our inclusion of mostly retrospective studies.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022367417.

Monitored Anesthesia Care Versus General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

OBJECTIVE

Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) has been increasingly used in lieu of general anesthesia (GA) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We sought to compare outcomes and in-hospital costs between MAC and GA for TAVR at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review was performed of 349 patients who underwent transfemoral TAVR (MAC, n = 244 vs GA, n = 105) from January 2014 to December 2019. Baseline patient characteristics, operating room (OR) time, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and cost, total LOS, hospital cost, total cost, and complication rates were collected. Propensity matching was performed and resulted in 83 matched pairs.

RESULTS

In the unmatched TAVR cohort, MAC TAVR was associated with reduced OR time (146 vs 198 min, P < 0.001), ICU LOS (1.4 vs 1.8 days, P < 0.001), total hospital LOS (3.4 vs 5.4 days, P < 0.001), and lower index total cost ($81,300 vs $85,400, P = 0.010). After propensity matching, MAC TAVR patients had reduced OR time (146 vs 196 min, P < 0.05), ICU LOS (1.2 vs 1.7 days, P = 0.006), total LOS (3.5 vs 5.1 days, P = 0.001), and 180-day mortality (2.4% vs 12%, P < 0.03). There was no difference in total hospitalization cost or total cost.

CONCLUSIONS

In propensity-matched groups, TAVR utilizing MAC is associated with improved OR time efficiency, decreased LOS, and a reduction in 180-day mortality but no significant difference in cost.

Defining the Time Benefit of Awake Versus General Anesthesia for Single-Level Lumbar Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Awake anesthesia with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) might confer time benefits compared with traditional general anesthesia (GA) in the setting of single-level lumbar spine surgery. Therefore, we sought to define the quantitative time difference spent in the operating room between the MAC and GA approaches for single-level lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of the senior surgeon was reviewed for single-level lumbar spine surgeries from 2019 to 2020 performed with the patient under either GA or MAC. The patient demographics, clinical features, time in the operating room, and postoperative outcomes were all summarized and statistically compared.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients satisfied all the selection criteria, with 25 (47%) in the GA group and 28 (53%) in the MAC group. Overall, most patients were men, with a median age of 60 years. The 2 groups were statistically comparable with respect to the demographics and preoperative anesthesia parameters. The time from room arrival to sedation start (median time, 26 vs. 38 minutes; P < 0.01), sedation time (median time, 55 vs. 87 minutes; P < 0.01), and time from sedation end to room exit (median time, 4 vs. 13 minutes; P < 0.01) were all significantly shorter for the MAC group. Additionally, the estimated blood loss was less in the MAC group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We found MAC to be a safe anesthesia option for use in single-level lumbar spine surgery, which led to statistically significant benefits regarding the time under sedation and time in the operating room compared with GA. Future studies are required to understand whether MAC will require other synergistic measures to generate observable change at a health systems level.

Utilization, Costs, and Outcomes of Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

[Figure: see text].