Anesthetic considerations for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Anesthesia choice for frail patients undergoing endovascular repair of nonruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Althugh general anesthesia is the predominant choice in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), recent studies have suggested that locoregional anesthesia could be a viable alternative for suitable patients. Frailty has been identified as an independent predictor of increased mortality and morbidity in EVAR. However, the choice of anesthesia in frail patients undergoing EVAR has not been explored.

METHODS

This study aimed to compare the 30-day outcomes of nonemergent intact infrarenal EVAR in frail patients receiving either locoregional or general anesthesia. Patients who underwent infrarenal EVAR were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2012 to 2022. Frail patients were selected by five-item Modified Frailty Index of ≥2. Exclusion criteria included age <18 years, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), emergency, and acute intraoperative conversion to open. A one:one propensity score matching strategy was used to match demographics, baseline characteristics, aneurysm diameter, distal aneurysm extent, and concomitant procedures between patients under locoregional and general anesthesia. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 16,438 patients who underwent EVAR, 4812 (29.27%) were frail. Among the frail patients, 483 (10.04%) were under locoregional anesthesia and 4329 (89.96%) were under general anesthesia. After propensity score matching, patients under locoregional or general anesthesia had comparable 30-day mortality (2.07% vs 2.48%; P = .83) or any complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Locoregional and general anesthesia were found to have comparable postoperative outcomes in frail patients undergoing EVAR unruptured AAA, which did not align with the suggestion that locoregional anesthesia might be more advantageous in frail patients. Although the patient's preferences should be considered, the choice of anesthesia should still be individualized to take into account the patient's age, comorbidities, AAA anatomy, and the complexity of the case, as well as previous surgical and anesthesia experiences.

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

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.

Anesthetic Considerations in Combined TAVR and Aortic Endovascular Procedures, a Case Report

ABSTRACT

We report a case of simultaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement and endovascular aneurysm repair. Our aim was to advocate the role of local and regional anesthesia as a key contributor in maintaining hemodynamic stability and avoiding abrupt blood pressure change. Endovascular combined procedures are gaining popularity for their numerous advantages. Nevertheless, they carry significant risks for their hemodynamic implications. It is imperative to acknowledge the modifications occurring after each correction and act accordingly. Different anesthesia approaches can dramatically influence hemodynamics; among all, we found local and regional anesthesia would better serve this objective.

Cerebral Perfusion Unveiled: A Comprehensive Review of Blood Pressure Management in Neurosurgical and Endovascular Aneurysm Interventions

This comprehensive review delves into the intricate dynamics of cerebral perfusion and blood pressure management within the context of neurosurgical and endovascular aneurysm interventions. The review highlights the critical role of maintaining a delicate hemodynamic balance, given the brain's susceptibility to fluctuations in blood pressure. Emphasizing the regulatory mechanisms of cerebral perfusion, particularly autoregulation, the study advocates for a nuanced and personalized approach to blood pressure control. Key findings underscore the significance of adhering to tailored blood pressure targets to mitigate the risks of ischemic and hemorrhagic complications in both neurosurgical and endovascular procedures. The implications for clinical practice are profound, calling for heightened awareness and precision in hemodynamic management. The review concludes with recommendations for future research, urging exploration into optimal blood pressure targets, advancements in monitoring technologies, investigations into long-term outcomes, and the development of personalized approaches. By consolidating current knowledge and charting a path for future investigations, this review aims to contribute to the continual enhancement of patient outcomes in the dynamic field of neurovascular interventions.

Use of Spinal Anesthesia during Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes after spinal anesthesia (SA) versus general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing thoracic endograft placement and to evaluate the adjunctive use of cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) placement.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review of patients that underwent thoracic endograft placement from 2001 to 2019 was performed. Patients were stratified based on the type of anesthesia they received: GA, SA or epidural, GA with CSFD, and SA with CSFD. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality and length of stay (LOS). Baseline characteristics were analyzed with Student's t-test and Pearson's chi-squared test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for 30-day mortality and longer LOS.

RESULTS

A total of 333 patients underwent thoracic endograft placement; 104 patients received SA, 180 patients received GA, 30 patients received GA and CSFD, and 19 patients received SA and CSFD. Of the total patients, 16.2% underwent thoracic endograft placement for type B aortic dissection, 3.3% for type A aortic dissection, and 12.3% for penetrating ulcer. The mean age of the study population was 68.7 years old. Patients undergoing SA were older with a mean age of 73.4 years versus 64.7 years for patients undergoing GA (P < 0.001). Spinal anesthesia (SA) was preferred in patients at high risk for GA (>75 years old: 52.9% vs. 33.3%, P < 0.001; renal comorbidities: 20.6% vs. 10.6%, P = 0.03, and current smokers: 26.7% vs. 9.6%, P < 0.001). Length of stay (LOS) was decreased in the SA group (4.29 days vs. 9.70 days, P < 0.001). There was a lower incidence of spinal cord ischemia in the SA group (1.0% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.44), as well as significantly decreased 30-day mortality (0% vs. 5.6%, P = 0.01), reintervention (19.2% vs. 26.8%, P = 0.02), and return to the operating room (6.8% vs. 12.7%, P = 0.02). Of the 19 patients that had SA + CSFD, there were no signs and symptoms of spinal cord ischemia and decreased incidence of perioperative complications (0% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.01). There was no difference in the risk for intraoperative complications, neurologic complications, or 30-day mortality between GA + CSFD patients versus SA + CSFD patients. Age >75 (P = 0.002), intraoperative complications (P < 0.001), and perioperative complications (P = 0.02) were associated with increased mortality after thoracic endograft placement per multivariate logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal anesthesia (SA) in select high-risk patients was associated with reduced 30-day mortality, neurologic complications, and LOS compared to GA. The concurrent use of spinal drainage and SA had satisfactory results compared to spinal drainage and GA.

Outcomes of endovascular, open surgical and autotransplantation techniques for renal artery aneurysm repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Renal artery aneurysms (RAA) can be repaired with endovascular exclusion (EVR), open repair (OR), or ex-vivo repair with renal autotransplantation (ERAT). This systematic review compares repair indications, aneurysm characteristics, and complications following these interventions.

METHODS

A systematic review of databases including MEDLINE, PUBMED, and EMBASE by two independent reviewers for studies from January 2000-November 2022. All studies evaluating repair indications, RAA morphology, morbidity and mortality following EVR, OR, and ERAT were included.

RESULTS

A total of 38 studies were included with 1540 EVR, 2377 OR and 109 ERAT subjects. Increasing aneurysm size, or diameters >20 mm, were the most common repair indications across EVR and OR (n = 537; 48%), and ERAT (n = 23; 52%). All ERAT repairs were at or distal to renal artery bifurcations (n = 46). Meta-analyses demonstrated significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) with EVR compared to OR (mean difference -4.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.69 to -2.43, P < 0.001). No significant differences were found in mean aneurysm diameter (P = 0.23), total complications (P = 0.17), and mortality (P = 0.85). Major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥III) across studies most commonly included acute renal failure (EVR 4.9% vs. OR 7.0%). Nephrectomy was the most common major complication in ERAT (5.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes following EVR and OR of RAAs are comparable. EVR offers a shorter LOS, with no difference in morbidity or mortality. ERAT is currently only utilized for distal RAAs, however carries higher risk of infarction and nephrectomy necessitating specialized expertise or algorithms to assist appropriate selection of repair methods.

General versus loco-regional anesthesia for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Aortic aneurysms occur when the aorta, the body's largest artery, grows in size, and can occur in the thoracic or abdominal aorta. The approaches to repair aortic aneurysms include directly exposing the aorta and replacing the diseased segment via open repair, or endovascular repair. Endovascular repair uses fluoroscopic-guidance to access the aorta and deliver a device to exclude the aneurysmal aortic segment without requiring a large surgical incision. Endovascular repair can be performed under a general anesthetic, during which the unconscious patient is paralyzed and reliant on an anesthetic machine to maintain the airway and provide oxygen to the lungs, or a loco-regional anesethetic, for which medications are administered to provide the person with sufficient sedation and pain control without requiring a general anesthetic. While people undergoing general anesthesia are more likely to remain still during surgery and have a well-controlled airway in the event of unanticipated complications, loco-regional anesthesia is associated with fewer postoperative complications in some studies. It remains unclear which anesthetic technique is associated with better outcomes following the endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of general anesthesia compared to loco-regional anesthesia for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was 11 March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for all randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of general anesthesia compared to loco-regional anesthesia for endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: all-cause mortality, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay. Our secondary outcomes were: incidence of endoleaks, requirement for re-intervention, incidence of myocardial infarction, quality of life, incidence of respiratory complications, incidence of pulmonary embolism, incidence of deep vein thrombosis, and length of procedure. We planned to use GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no studies, published or ongoing, that met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not identify any randomized controlled trials that compared general versus loco-regional anesthesia for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. There is currently insufficient high-quality evidence to determine the benefits or harms of either anesthetic approach during endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Well-designed prospective randomized trials with relevant clinical outcomes are needed to adequately address this.

Splenic Artery Pseudoaneurysm—A Concern for the Anesthesiologist

Pseudoaneurysms as compared with aneurysms lack a true wall and have a higher propensity of rupture. Visceral artery pseudoaneurysms are uncommon and are life-threatening. We, hereby, report anesthetic management of a rare case of splenic artery pseudoaneurysm that accompanied the dilatation of aorta from its origin extending up to its bifurcation.

Mini-endovascular aneurysm repair: a minimalist approach for a minimally invasive procedure

Introduction

Abdominal aortic aneurysms represent the majority of all aneurysms of the aorta. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an alternative procedure to surgical repair. Although general and regional anaesthesia are frequently used during EVAR procedures, local anaesthesia has become one of the anaesthesia options for which there is increasing experience.

Aim

We reported our EVAR cases in which we routinely used femoral local anaesthesia.

Material and methods

Between August 2016 and June 2020, the EVAR procedure was applied to 22 infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm patients under femoral local anaesthesia. Open femoral artery access through a groin incision was used in all patients. Patients were followed up for graft- and wound-related complications.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 72.59 ±6.6 years (min: 60, max: 84). Mean aneurysm sac diameter was 61.04 ±8.76 mm. Bifurcated stent graft was used in 21 (95.5%) patients. An aorto-uni-iliac stent graft was used for 1 (4.5%) patient due to contralateral total iliac occlusion. Endoleak was observed in 6 patients. In-hospital mortality was observed in 2 patients; both cases were ruptured with haemodynamic instability (9%). Revision in the groin area was performed in 3 (13.6%) patients due to local wound complications.

Conclusions

Although the EVAR procedure has been described as a safer and more easily applicable alternative to surgical repair, it is disadvantageous in terms of increasing treatment costs. Anaesthesia preference and incision size with a more minimalist approach can reduce the length of hospital stay and minimize the complications that may occur after the procedure, resulting in decreased costs.

Acute-onset paraplegia as an unexpected complication under general anesthesia in supine position during abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair: a case report

BACKGROUND

Acute onset paraplegia after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a rare but well-known complication. We here show a 79-year-old woman with paraplegia caused by static and dynamic spinal cord insult not by ischemia after EVAR.

CASE PRESENTATION

The patient underwent EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurism under general anesthesia in the supine position. She had a medical history of lumbar canal stenosis. After the surgery, we recognized severe paraplegia and sensory disorder of lower limbs. Although the possibility of spinal cord ischemia was considered at that time, postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed burst fracture of vertebra and compressed spinal cord.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with spinal canal stenosis can cause extrinsic spinal cord injury even with weak external forces. Thus, even after EVAR, it is important to consider extrinsic factors as the cause of paraplegia.

Novel Experimental Technique to Create Size-Controlled Retroperitoneal Bleeding in the Infrarenal Aorta of Anesthetized Pigs

OBJECTIVE

Rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) with a contained retroperitoneal hematoma is potentially fatal. Physiological studies are difficult to perform in patients suffering from life-threatening conditions such as rAAA. A translational model of the condition is therefore needed. The aim was to develop and validate an endovascular animal model for retroperitoneal bleeding of the abdominal aorta with contained hematoma.

METHODS

In anesthetized pigs, a puncture hole was made in the posterolateral portion of the infrarenal aorta by an Outback re-entry catheter device. The hole was gradually enlarged using angioplasty balloons to a specific diameter of either 4 mm (n = 6), 6 mm (n = 7), or 8 mm (n = 6). Onset of bleeding was verified by angiography and macroscopically examined on completion of the experiments. Survival up to 180 min was the primary outcome. Hemodynamic and metabolic markers in arterial blood were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Aortic injury with a contained retroperitoneal hematoma was achieved in all animals. Survival rate at 180 min after onset of bleeding was higher in the 4 mm group compared to the 6 mm (P = 0.021) and 8 mm groups (P = 0.002), but not when comparing the 6 mm and 8 mm groups. Systemic hypotension, arterial acidosis, and lactatemia were provoked in the 6 mm and 8 mm groups but not in the 4 mm group.

CONCLUSIONS

A porcine model for a controlled contained left posterolateral retroperitoneal bleeding was created using endovascular methods and validated. This model makes it possible to study the pathophysiology of a retroperitoneal hematoma.

Percutaneous endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with monitored anesthesia care decreases operative time but not pulmonary complications

OBJECTIVES

To report our experience and compare the results of percutaneous endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (PEVAR) performed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) to PEVAR under general anesthesia (GA).

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent non-emergency endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) was completed. Patients were excluded if they had a complex repair, including fenestrated, branched, or parallel endografting. Demographics, operative data, 30-day mortality/morbidity and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 159 patients were identified with a median age of 69. 115 patients had PEVAR, 45 (39.1%) PEVAR MAC and 70 (60.9%) PEVAR GA. PEVAR MAC compared to PEVAR GA had decreased operative time (106 vs. 134 min, P < 0.001), time in the operating room (163 vs. 245 min, P = 0.016), and estimated blood loss (EBL) (115 vs. 176 mL P = 0.012). There was no statistically significant difference in the hospital length of stay (LOS) (1.9 vs. 2.7 days, P = 0.133), and post-operative complications including pulmonary (2.2 vs. 2.9%, P = 0.835). Forty-four patients had EVAR with a femoral cutdown (FC), including 14 PEVAR conversions. PEVAR conversion was associated with higher EBL (543 vs. 323 mL, P = 0.03), operative time (230 vs. 178 min, P = 0.01), and operating room time (307 vs. 275 min, P = 0.01) compared to planned EVAR with FC.

CONCLUSIONS

PEVAR under MAC is associated with shorter time in the operating room compared to PEVAR under GA. PEVAR under MAC does however not decrease overall morbidities, including postoperative pulmonary complications.

[Summary of the S3 guideline on abdominal aortic aneurysm from an anesthesiological perspective]

The current article is a summary of the 2018 revised S3 guideline on screening, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from an anesthesiological point of view. It is the only interdisciplinary guideline that describes in particular the perioperative anesthesiological and intensive care management.

Analysis of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Small Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms in Males

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) when ≥5.5 cm. This study sought to evaluate the incidence of male patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for AAAs of various diameters (small <4 cm; intermediate 4-5.4 cm; standard ≥5.5 cm). We analyzed predictors of mortality, hypothesizing that smaller AAAs (<5.5 cm) have no differences in associated risk of mortality compared to standard AAAs (≥5.5 cm).

METHODS

The 2011-2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Procedure-Targeted Vascular database was queried for male patients undergoing elective EVAR. Patients were stratified by aneurysm diameter. A multivariable logistic regression analysis for clinical outcomes, adjusting for age, clinical characteristics, and comorbidities, was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 8037 male patients underwent EVAR with 3926 (48.9%) performed for AAAs <5.5 cm. There was no difference in mortality, readmission, major complications, myocardial infarction, stroke, or ischemic complications among the 3 groups (P > 0.05). In AAAs <5.5 cm, predictors of mortality included prior abdominal surgery (odds ratio [OR], 5.77; confidence interval [CI], 1.38-24.13; P = 0.016), weight loss (OR, 43.4; CI, 3.78-498.7; P = 0.002), disseminated cancer (OR, 17.9; CI, 1.30-245.97; P = 0.031), and diabetes (OR, 6.09; CI, 1.52-24.36; P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 50% of male patients undergoing elective EVAR were treated for AAAs <5.5 cm. There was no difference in associated risk of mortality for smaller AAAs compared to standard AAAs. The strongest predictors of mortality for patients with smaller AAAs were prior abdominal surgery, weight loss, disseminated cancer, and diabetes.

The Obesity-associated Risk in Open and Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

:

The rising pandemic of obesity in modern society should direct attention to a more comprehensive approach to abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment in the affected population. Although overweight patients are considered prone to increased surgical risk, studies on the subject did not confirm or specify the risks well enough.

:

Associated comorbidities inevitably lead to a selection bias leaning towards endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR), as a less invasive treatment option, which makes it hard to single out obesity as an independent risk factor. The increased technical difficulty often results in prolonged procedure times and increased blood loss. Several smaller studies and two analyses of national registries, including 7935 patients, highlighted the advantages of EVAR over open repair (OR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm, especially in morbidly obese population (relative risk reduction up to 47%). On the other hand, two other studies with 1374 patients combined, concluded that EVAR might not have an advantage over OR in obese patients (P = 0.52). Obesity is an established risk factor for wound infection after both EVAR and OR, which is associated with longer length of stay, subsequent major operations, and a higher rate of graft failure. Percutaneous EVAR technique could present a promising solution to reducing this complication.

:

EVAR seems like a more feasible treatment option than OR for obese patients with AAA, due to lower overall morbidity and mortality rates, as well as reduced wound-related complication rates. However, there is a clear lack of high-quality evidence on the subject, thus future prospective trials are needed to confirm this advantage.