Andres Guerra1, Calvin Chao2, Gabriel A Wallace2, Heron E Rodriguez2, Mark K Eskandari2. 1. Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Division of Vascular Surgery, Surgery Department, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: andres.guerra@northwestern.edu. 2. Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Division of Vascular Surgery, Surgery Department, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a streamlined approach for expedient postoperative care of high-volume procedures. Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become standard treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms and implementation of an early recovery program is warranted. Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) remains a problem lending to longer hospital stays and patient discomfort. We aim to demonstrate the utility of monitored anesthetic care (MAC) plus local anesthesia as a modality to minimize urinary retention following EVAR. METHODS: Single-center retrospective review from January 2017 to March 2020 of all patients undergoing standard elective EVAR under general anesthesia or MAC anesthesia. Local anesthetic at vessel access sites was used in all patients under MAC. Ruptured pathology and female sex were excluded from analysis. Patient characteristics, operative details, prostate measurements, and outcomes were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Urinary retention was defined as any requirement of straight catheterization, urinary catheter replacement, or discharge with urinary catheter. Chi square tests and logistic regression were used to determine predictors associated with POUR and increased hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Among 138 patients who underwent EVAR, eight (5.8%) were excluded due to ruptured pathology. Of the cohort, 113 (86.9%) were male with mean age of 73 years. Excluding female patients, 63 (55.8%) male patients underwent general anesthesia and 50 (44.3%) underwent MAC. Male patients under general anesthesia were more likely to have intra-operative urinary catheter placement when compared to MAC (82.5% vs. 36%, respectively; P < 0.001). POUR was identified in 17 patients (13.1%) of the entire study population with 15 events (88.2%) occurring in males. Excluding patients who were admitted to the ICU, twenty-two (19.5%) male patients stayed past postoperative day (POD) one, of which those who developed POUR were more likely to experience compared to those without POUR (45.6% vs. 9.7%, respectively; P = 0.001). On multivariable analysis, male patients who received MAC had a lower risk of developing POUR (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.50). POUR was not associated with elective urinary catheter placement nor with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, urinary retention, benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), or use of BPH medications. Additionally, neither prostate size nor volume was associated with developing POUR among male patients. CONCLUSION: MAC plus local anesthesia is associated with decreased rates of POUR after elective EVAR in male patients. ERAS pathways during elective EVAR interventions should implement MAC plus local anesthesia as an acceptable anesthetic option, where appropriate, in order to reduce urinary retention rates and subsequently decrease hospital length of stay in this patient cohort.
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a streamlined approach for expedient postoperative care of high-volume procedures. Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become standard treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms and implementation of an early recovery program is warranted. Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) remains a problem lending to longer hospital stays and patient discomfort. We aim to demonstrate the utility of monitored anesthetic care (MAC) plus local anesthesia as a modality to minimize urinary retention following EVAR. METHODS: Single-center retrospective review from January 2017 to March 2020 of all patients undergoing standard elective EVAR under general anesthesia or MAC anesthesia. Local anesthetic at vessel access sites was used in all patients under MAC. Ruptured pathology and female sex were excluded from analysis. Patient characteristics, operative details, prostate measurements, and outcomes were abstracted from the electronic medical record. Urinary retention was defined as any requirement of straight catheterization, urinary catheter replacement, or discharge with urinary catheter. Chi square tests and logistic regression were used to determine predictors associated with POUR and increased hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Among 138 patients who underwent EVAR, eight (5.8%) were excluded due to ruptured pathology. Of the cohort, 113 (86.9%) were male with mean age of 73 years. Excluding female patients, 63 (55.8%) male patients underwent general anesthesia and 50 (44.3%) underwent MAC. Male patients under general anesthesia were more likely to have intra-operative urinary catheter placement when compared to MAC (82.5% vs. 36%, respectively; P < 0.001). POUR was identified in 17 patients (13.1%) of the entire study population with 15 events (88.2%) occurring in males. Excluding patients who were admitted to the ICU, twenty-two (19.5%) male patients stayed past postoperative day (POD) one, of which those who developed POUR were more likely to experience compared to those without POUR (45.6% vs. 9.7%, respectively; P = 0.001). On multivariable analysis, male patients who received MAC had a lower risk of developing POUR (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.50). POUR was not associated with elective urinary catheter placement nor with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, urinary retention, benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), or use of BPH medications. Additionally, neither prostate size nor volume was associated with developing POUR among male patients. CONCLUSION: MAC plus local anesthesia is associated with decreased rates of POUR after elective EVAR in male patients. ERAS pathways during elective EVAR interventions should implement MAC plus local anesthesia as an acceptable anesthetic option, where appropriate, in order to reduce urinary retention rates and subsequently decrease hospital length of stay in this patient cohort.
Authors: Vincent P Moscato; Monica S O'Brien-Irr; Maciej L Dryjski; Hasan H Dosluoglu; Gregory S Cherr; Linda M Harris Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Matthew S Edwards; Jeanette S Andrews; Angela F Edwards; Racheed J Ghanami; Matthew A Corriere; Philip P Goodney; Christopher J Godshall; Kimberley J Hansen Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Kathryn Van Orden; Alik Farber; Marc L Schermerhorn; Philip P Goodney; Jeffrey A Kalish; Douglas W Jones; Denis Rybin; Jeffrey J Siracuse Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Richard A Armstrong; Yolande G Squire; Chris A Rogers; Robert J Hinchliffe; Ronelle Mouton Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Mark D Morasch; Melina R Kibbe; Mary E Evans; Wendy S Meadows; Mark K Eskandari; Jon S Matsumura; William H Pearce Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: J Jackson; P Davies; N Leggett; M D Nugawela; L J Scott; V Leach; A Richards; A Blacker; P Abrams; J Sharma; J Donovan; P Whiting Journal: BJS Open Date: 2018-11-19