Rumi Faizer1, Eric Weinhandl2, Selma El Hag3, Stacey Le Jeune3, Ioanna Apostolidou4, Susan M Shafii3, Cheong J Lee5, Michael S Rosenberg6, Amy Reed3, Christina L Fanola7. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. Electronic address: rfaizer@umn.edu. 2. Department of Pharmaceutical Care and Health Systems, College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. 3. Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. 4. Division of Anesthesia, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. 5. Division of Vascular Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisc. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. 7. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an accepted approach for patients presenting with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) and suitable anatomy. The effect of anesthesia modality on mortality outcomes in rAAA has not been well described. Using the Vascular Quality Initiative database, this study compares local anesthesia (LA) vs general anesthesia (GA) in EVAR for rAAA. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients presenting with rAAA managed with open surgical repair, EVAR under LA (rEVAR-LA), and EVAR under GA (rEVAR-GA) between 2003 and 2017. Patients were observed until the earlier end point of either death or 1-year follow-up. Kaplan-Meier event rates are presented at 30 days and 1 year. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model risk of death, with adjustment for demographic and clinical factors. Additional multivariate Cox hazards analyses were used to assess effect modifiers for 1-year mortality for the different repair methods. RESULTS: A total of 3330 patients (77.4% male) met the inclusion criteria (1594 [47.9%] open surgical repair, 226 [6.8%] rEVAR-LA, and 1510 [45.3%] rEVAR-GA). Patients treated with rEVAR-LA compared with rEVAR-GA had decreased intraoperative time, number of intraoperative blood transfusions, intraoperative crystalloid administration, intensive care unit length of stay, and postoperative pulmonary complications. Mortality rates with rEVAR-LA were lower compared with rEVAR-GA at 30 days (15.5% vs 23.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.99; P = .04) and at 1 year (22.5% vs 32.3%; AHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.96; P = .02). Patients undergoing EVAR who were <75 years old and those without preoperative hypotension had the greatest survival benefit from LA compared with GA (both factors: AHR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.03-0.57]; single factor: AHR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.36-0.91]). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that rEVAR-LA for rAAA may be a safe alternative to rEVAR-GA for certain patients, with lower morbidity and improved mortality. Further prospective study is warranted to confirm mortality benefit in rEVAR-LA for rAAA.
BACKGROUND:Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an accepted approach for patients presenting with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) and suitable anatomy. The effect of anesthesia modality on mortality outcomes in rAAA has not been well described. Using the Vascular Quality Initiative database, this study compares local anesthesia (LA) vs general anesthesia (GA) in EVAR for rAAA. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for patients presenting with rAAA managed with open surgical repair, EVAR under LA (rEVAR-LA), and EVAR under GA (rEVAR-GA) between 2003 and 2017. Patients were observed until the earlier end point of either death or 1-year follow-up. Kaplan-Meier event rates are presented at 30 days and 1 year. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model risk of death, with adjustment for demographic and clinical factors. Additional multivariate Cox hazards analyses were used to assess effect modifiers for 1-year mortality for the different repair methods. RESULTS: A total of 3330 patients (77.4% male) met the inclusion criteria (1594 [47.9%] open surgical repair, 226 [6.8%] rEVAR-LA, and 1510 [45.3%] rEVAR-GA). Patients treated with rEVAR-LA compared with rEVAR-GA had decreased intraoperative time, number of intraoperative blood transfusions, intraoperative crystalloid administration, intensive care unit length of stay, and postoperative pulmonary complications. Mortality rates with rEVAR-LA were lower compared with rEVAR-GA at 30 days (15.5% vs 23.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.99; P = .04) and at 1 year (22.5% vs 32.3%; AHR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.96; P = .02). Patients undergoing EVAR who were <75 years old and those without preoperative hypotension had the greatest survival benefit from LA compared with GA (both factors: AHR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.03-0.57]; single factor: AHR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.36-0.91]). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that rEVAR-LA for rAAA may be a safe alternative to rEVAR-GA for certain patients, with lower morbidity and improved mortality. Further prospective study is warranted to confirm mortality benefit in rEVAR-LA for rAAA.
Authors: Jay P Natarajan; Ashorne K Mahenthiran; Daniel J Bertges; Kristopher M Huffman; Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen; Gary W Lemmon Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 4.268