Long-term Outcomes with Spinal versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The effects of spinal versus general anesthesia on long-term outcomes have not been well studied. This study tested the hypothesis that spinal anesthesia is associated with better long-term survival and functional recovery than general anesthesia.

METHODS

A prespecified analysis was conducted of long-term outcomes of a completed randomized superiority trial that compared spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for hip fracture repair. Participants included previously ambulatory patients 50 yr of age or older at 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. Patients were randomized 1:1 to spinal or general anesthesia, stratified by sex, fracture type, and study site. Outcome assessors and investigators involved in the data analysis were masked to the treatment arm. Outcomes included survival at up to 365 days after randomization (primary); recovery of ambulation among 365-day survivors; and composite endpoints for death or new inability to ambulate and death or new nursing home residence at 365 days. Patients were included in the analysis as randomized.

RESULTS

A total of 1,600 patients were enrolled between February 12, 2016, and February 18, 2021; 795 were assigned to spinal anesthesia, and 805 were assigned to general anesthesia. Among 1,599 patients who underwent surgery, vital status information at or beyond the final study interview (conducted at approximately 365 days after randomization) was available for 1,427 (89.2%). Survival did not differ by treatment arm; at 365 days after randomization, there were 98 deaths in patients assigned to spinal anesthesia versus 92 deaths in patients assigned to general anesthesia (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.44, P = 0.59). Recovery of ambulation among patients who survived a year did not differ by type of anesthesia (adjusted odds ratio for spinal vs. general, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.14; P = 0.31). Other outcomes did not differ by treatment arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes were similar with spinal versus general anesthesia.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Outcomes with spinal versus general anesthesia for patients with and without preoperative cognitive impairment: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The effect of spinal versus general anesthesia on the risk of postoperative delirium or other outcomes for patients with or without cognitive impairment (including dementia) is unknown.

METHODS

Post hoc secondary analysis of a multicenter pragmatic trial comparing spinal versus general anesthesia for adults aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery.

RESULTS

Among patients randomized to spinal versus general anesthesia, new or worsened delirium occurred in 100/295 (33.9%) versus 107/283 (37.8%; odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60 to 1.19) among persons with cognitive impairment and 70/432 (16.2%) versus 71/445 (16.0%) among persons without cognitive impairment (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.47, p = 0.46 for interaction). Delirium severity, in-hospital complications, and 60-day functional recovery did not differ by anesthesia type in patients with or without cognitive impairment.

DISCUSSION

Anesthesia type is not associated with differences in delirium and functional outcomes among persons with or without cognitive impairment.

Pain, Analgesic Use, and Patient Satisfaction With Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery : A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The REGAIN (Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture) trial found similar ambulation and survival at 60 days with spinal versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Trial outcomes evaluating pain, prescription analgesic use, and patient satisfaction have not yet been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To compare pain, analgesic use, and satisfaction after hip fracture surgery with spinal versus general anesthesia.

DESIGN

Preplanned secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02507505).

SETTING

46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery.

INTERVENTION

Spinal or general anesthesia.

MEASUREMENTS

Pain on postoperative days 1 through 3; 60-, 180-, and 365-day pain and prescription analgesic use; and satisfaction with care.

RESULTS

A total of 1600 patients were enrolled. The average age was 78 years, and 77% were women. A total of 73.5% (1050 of 1428) of patients reported severe pain during the first 24 hours after surgery. Worst pain over the first 24 hours after surgery was greater with spinal anesthesia (rated from 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]; mean difference, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.68]). Pain did not differ across groups at other time points. Prescription analgesic use at 60 days occurred in 25% (141 of 563) and 18.8% (108 of 574) of patients assigned to spinal and general anesthesia, respectively (relative risk, 1.33 [CI, 1.06 to 1.65]). Satisfaction was similar across groups.

LIMITATION

Missing outcome data and multiple outcomes assessed.

CONCLUSION

Severe pain is common after hip fracture. Spinal anesthesia was associated with more pain in the first 24 hours after surgery and more prescription analgesic use at 60 days compared with general anesthesia.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Spinal Anesthesia or General Anesthesia for Hip Surgery in Older Adults

BACKGROUND

The effects of spinal anesthesia as compared with general anesthesia on the ability to walk in older adults undergoing surgery for hip fracture have not been well studied.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic, randomized superiority trial to evaluate spinal anesthesia as compared with general anesthesia in previously ambulatory patients 50 years of age or older who were undergoing surgery for hip fracture at 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive spinal or general anesthesia. The primary outcome was a composite of death or an inability to walk approximately 10 ft (3 m) independently or with a walker or cane at 60 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included death within 60 days, delirium, time to discharge, and ambulation at 60 days.

RESULTS

A total of 1600 patients were enrolled; 795 were assigned to receive spinal anesthesia and 805 to receive general anesthesia. The mean age was 78 years, and 67.0% of the patients were women. A total of 666 patients (83.8%) assigned to spinal anesthesia and 769 patients (95.5%) assigned to general anesthesia received their assigned anesthesia. Among patients in the modified intention-to-treat population for whom data were available, the composite primary outcome occurred in 132 of 712 patients (18.5%) in the spinal anesthesia group and 132 of 733 (18.0%) in the general anesthesia group (relative risk, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.27; P = 0.83). An inability to walk independently at 60 days was reported in 104 of 684 patients (15.2%) and 101 of 702 patients (14.4%), respectively (relative risk, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.36), and death within 60 days occurred in 30 of 768 (3.9%) and 32 of 784 (4.1%), respectively (relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.57). Delirium occurred in 130 of 633 patients (20.5%) in the spinal anesthesia group and in 124 of 629 (19.7%) in the general anesthesia group (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal anesthesia for hip-fracture surgery in older adults was not superior to general anesthesia with respect to survival and recovery of ambulation at 60 days. The incidence of postoperative delirium was similar with the two types of anesthesia. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; REGAIN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02507505.).

Reduced Complications of Supraclavicular Approach in Simulated Central Venous Access: Applicability to Military Medicine

In a study with 76 anesthesia providers on a mixed reality simulator, central venous access via the supraclavicular approach to the subclavian vein, without ultrasonography required less attempts compared to the infraclavicular approach. Participants had shorter times to venous access and larger improvements in confidence. Results from this simulation-based study indicate that the supraclavicular approach may deserve consideration as an alternative approach for central venous access in deployed military environments. The use of ultrasonography during the supraclavicular approach to the subclavian vein is also described which may improve its safety profile. This technique could be more appropriate in scenarios when central venous access is preferred over intraosseous access for patients being transported to another location for further care.