OBJECTIVE: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of the mode of anesthesia and outcome after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Review methods were according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Published and unpublished literature was searched. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were categorized for patient selection, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for continuous variables, such as length of stay, and pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for discrete variables such as major morbidity. RESULTS: Ten studies of 13,459 patients given local anesthesia (LA) or general anesthesia (GA) were eligible for analysis. There was no difference in 30-day mortality. The LA patients were older than the GA patients (WMD, 0.17; P = .006), with an increased burden of cardiac (LA vs GA: OR, 1.28; P = .011) and respiratory (LA vs GA: OR, 1.28; P = .006) comorbidity. LA EVAR was reported with shorter operative time (WMD, -0.54; P = .001) and hospital stay (WMD, -0.27; P = .001) vs GA. LA patients developed fewer postoperative complications than GA patients (OR, 0.54; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The absence of randomized data is a major hurdle to understanding the effect of anesthetic technique on morbidity after EVAR. The data presented are encouraging in selected patients. The use of locoregional anesthesia for EVAR should be further investigated with better reporting of aneurysm morphology to clarify its potential benefits and identify the subgroups that will derive greatest benefit.
OBJECTIVE: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of the mode of anesthesia and outcome after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). METHODS: Review methods were according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Published and unpublished literature was searched. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were categorized for patient selection, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes. Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated for continuous variables, such as length of stay, and pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated for discrete variables such as major morbidity. RESULTS: Ten studies of 13,459 patients given local anesthesia (LA) or general anesthesia (GA) were eligible for analysis. There was no difference in 30-day mortality. The LA patients were older than the GA patients (WMD, 0.17; P = .006), with an increased burden of cardiac (LA vs GA: OR, 1.28; P = .011) and respiratory (LA vs GA: OR, 1.28; P = .006) comorbidity. LA EVAR was reported with shorter operative time (WMD, -0.54; P = .001) and hospital stay (WMD, -0.27; P = .001) vs GA. LA patients developed fewer postoperative complications than GA patients (OR, 0.54; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The absence of randomized data is a major hurdle to understanding the effect of anesthetic technique on morbidity after EVAR. The data presented are encouraging in selected patients. The use of locoregional anesthesia for EVAR should be further investigated with better reporting of aneurysm morphology to clarify its potential benefits and identify the subgroups that will derive greatest benefit.