Comparative Efficacy of Local and General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

Lulu Gao, Baihan Jin, C. Chao, Bin Wang, Xiaoying Zhang, Jiang Shen
{"title":"Comparative Efficacy of Local and General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.","authors":"Lulu Gao, Baihan Jin, C. Chao, Bin Wang, Xiaoying Zhang, Jiang Shen","doi":"10.22541/au.162954536.64482469/v1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the potential effects of local anesthesia (LA) and general anesthesia (GA) for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).\n\n\nMEASUREMENTS\nAll relevant studies were searched from Pubmed, EMbase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library (January 1, 2016, to June 1, 2021). The main outcomes of this literature meta-analysis were 30-day mortality, procedural time, new pacemaker implantation, total stay in the hospital, use of the vasoactive drug, and intra-and postoperative complications and emergencies, including conversion to open, myocardial infarction, pulmonary complication, vascular complication, renal injury/failure, stroke, transesophageal echocardiography, life-threatening/major bleeding, cardiac tamponade, and emergency PCI. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) together with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.\n\n\nRESULTS\nA total of 17 studies, including 20938 patients, in the final analysis, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Intra-and postoperative complications (myocardial infarction, vascular complication, renal injury/failure, stroke, and cardiac tamponade) undergoing TAVI in severe AS patients under GA do not offer a significant difference compared with LA. No differences were observed between LA and GA for new pacemaker implantation, total stay in the hospital, transesophageal echocardiography, and emergency PCI. LA has lower mortality compared with GA (RR 0.69, P = 0.600), pulmonary complications (RR 0.54, P = 0.278), life-threatening/major bleeding (RR 0.85, P = 0.855), and lower times of conversion to open (RR 0.22, P = 0.746). LA has many advantages, including a shorter procedure duration (MD=-0.38, P = 0.000) and reduction of the use of the vasoactive drug (RR 0.57, P = 0.000).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nFor TAVI, both LA with or without sedation and GA are feasible and safe. LA appears a feasible alternative to GA for AS patients undergoing TAVI.","PeriodicalId":257138,"journal":{"name":"The heart surgery forum","volume":"137 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The heart surgery forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22541/au.162954536.64482469/v1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

BACKGROUND This meta-analysis aimed to compare the potential effects of local anesthesia (LA) and general anesthesia (GA) for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). MEASUREMENTS All relevant studies were searched from Pubmed, EMbase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library (January 1, 2016, to June 1, 2021). The main outcomes of this literature meta-analysis were 30-day mortality, procedural time, new pacemaker implantation, total stay in the hospital, use of the vasoactive drug, and intra-and postoperative complications and emergencies, including conversion to open, myocardial infarction, pulmonary complication, vascular complication, renal injury/failure, stroke, transesophageal echocardiography, life-threatening/major bleeding, cardiac tamponade, and emergency PCI. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) together with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. RESULTS A total of 17 studies, including 20938 patients, in the final analysis, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Intra-and postoperative complications (myocardial infarction, vascular complication, renal injury/failure, stroke, and cardiac tamponade) undergoing TAVI in severe AS patients under GA do not offer a significant difference compared with LA. No differences were observed between LA and GA for new pacemaker implantation, total stay in the hospital, transesophageal echocardiography, and emergency PCI. LA has lower mortality compared with GA (RR 0.69, P = 0.600), pulmonary complications (RR 0.54, P = 0.278), life-threatening/major bleeding (RR 0.85, P = 0.855), and lower times of conversion to open (RR 0.22, P = 0.746). LA has many advantages, including a shorter procedure duration (MD=-0.38, P = 0.000) and reduction of the use of the vasoactive drug (RR 0.57, P = 0.000). CONCLUSIONS For TAVI, both LA with or without sedation and GA are feasible and safe. LA appears a feasible alternative to GA for AS patients undergoing TAVI.
经导管主动脉瓣植入术中局部麻醉与全身麻醉的疗效比较:荟萃分析和系统评价。
本荟萃分析旨在比较局部麻醉(LA)和全身麻醉(GA)对经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)的潜在影响。测量方法:检索Pubmed、EMbase、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆(2016年1月1日至2021年6月1日)的所有相关研究。本文献荟萃分析的主要结果为30天死亡率、手术时间、新的起搏器植入、总住院时间、血管活性药物的使用、术中及术后并发症和紧急情况,包括转开、心肌梗死、肺并发症、血管并发症、肾损伤/衰竭、卒中、经食管超声心动图、危及生命/大出血、心脏填塞和急诊PCI。计算合并风险比(RR)、平均差(MD)及95%置信区间(CI)。结果17项研究,20938例患者最终符合纳入标准。GA下严重AS患者行TAVI的术中及术后并发症(心肌梗死、血管并发症、肾损伤/衰竭、卒中、心包填塞)与LA相比无显著差异。LA和GA在新起搏器植入、总住院时间、经食管超声心动图和急诊PCI方面均无差异。与GA相比,LA的死亡率(RR 0.69, P = 0.600)、肺部并发症(RR 0.54, P = 0.278)、危及生命/大出血(RR 0.85, P = 0.855)、转行时间(RR 0.22, P = 0.746)较低。LA有许多优点,包括较短的手术时间(MD=-0.38, P = 0.000)和减少血管活性药物的使用(RR = 0.57, P = 0.000)。结论对于TAVI, LA加或不加镇静和GA均是可行且安全的。对于接受TAVI的AS患者,LA似乎是GA的可行替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信