OBJECTIVES: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is typically performed with general anesthesia (GA) and surgical cutdown (G-TEVAR). As the latest generation of TEVAR delivery systems are smaller, we introduced percutaneous TEVAR with regional anesthesia (RA) (R-TEVAR) and an arteriotomy closure device. In this study, we compare the safety and efficacy of R-TEVAR to that of the G-TEVAR. METHODS: This single-center observational study included consecutive patients who underwent either G-TEVAR between January 2015 and October 2018 (33 patients) or R-TEVAR (41 patients) between January 2018 and April 2020. RA was achieved using an ultrasound-guided nerve block. RESULTS: The mean outer diameter of the delivery device was significantly smaller in R-TEVAR (18.5 vs. 22.7 Fr; p < 0.01) and the time from arriving into the operating room to beginning of surgery (34.1 vs. 68.5 min; p < 0.01), procedural time (46.4 vs. 103.6 min; p < 0.01), and operating room stay time (108.3 vs. 194.6 min; p < 0.01) were significantly shorter. The mean rate of change in blood pressure was significantly lower in the R-TEVAR group (7.7% vs. 32.2%; p < 0.01). One case of spinal cord ischemia occurred in the G-TEVAR group (0% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.262) and one case of inadequate hemostasis and conversion to surgical cutdown without GA occurred in the R-TEVAR group (2.4% vs. 0%; p = 0.366). CONCLUSIONS: The R-TEVAR is safe and minimally invasive. Further, RA may provide additional benefits of mean blood pressure stability and early recognition of neurologic complications.
OBJECTIVES: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is typically performed with general anesthesia (GA) and surgical cutdown (G-TEVAR). As the latest generation of TEVAR delivery systems are smaller, we introduced percutaneous TEVAR with regional anesthesia (RA) (R-TEVAR) and an arteriotomy closure device. In this study, we compare the safety and efficacy of R-TEVAR to that of the G-TEVAR. METHODS: This single-center observational study included consecutive patients who underwent either G-TEVAR between January 2015 and October 2018 (33 patients) or R-TEVAR (41 patients) between January 2018 and April 2020. RA was achieved using an ultrasound-guided nerve block. RESULTS: The mean outer diameter of the delivery device was significantly smaller in R-TEVAR (18.5 vs. 22.7 Fr; p < 0.01) and the time from arriving into the operating room to beginning of surgery (34.1 vs. 68.5 min; p < 0.01), procedural time (46.4 vs. 103.6 min; p < 0.01), and operating room stay time (108.3 vs. 194.6 min; p < 0.01) were significantly shorter. The mean rate of change in blood pressure was significantly lower in the R-TEVAR group (7.7% vs. 32.2%; p < 0.01). One case of spinal cord ischemia occurred in the G-TEVAR group (0% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.262) and one case of inadequate hemostasis and conversion to surgical cutdown without GA occurred in the R-TEVAR group (2.4% vs. 0%; p = 0.366). CONCLUSIONS: The R-TEVAR is safe and minimally invasive. Further, RA may provide additional benefits of mean blood pressure stability and early recognition of neurologic complications.