颈动脉内膜切除术的全身麻醉与非全身麻醉:基于多中心登记的 25000 例患者的前瞻性研究。

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurosurgery Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1227/neu.0000000000002887
Victor Gabriel El-Hajj, Abdul Karim Ghaith, Maria Gharios, Kareem El Naamani, Elias Atallah, Steven Glener, Karl John Habashy, Harry Hoang, Saman Sizdahkhani, Nikolaos Mouchtouris, Anand Kaul, Adrian Elmi-Terander, Stavropoula Tjoumakaris, M Reid Gooch, Robert H Rosenwasser, Pascal Jabbour
{"title":"颈动脉内膜切除术的全身麻醉与非全身麻醉:基于多中心登记的 25000 例患者的前瞻性研究。","authors":"Victor Gabriel El-Hajj, Abdul Karim Ghaith, Maria Gharios, Kareem El Naamani, Elias Atallah, Steven Glener, Karl John Habashy, Harry Hoang, Saman Sizdahkhani, Nikolaos Mouchtouris, Anand Kaul, Adrian Elmi-Terander, Stavropoula Tjoumakaris, M Reid Gooch, Robert H Rosenwasser, Pascal Jabbour","doi":"10.1227/neu.0000000000002887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a well-established treatment option for carotid stenosis. The choice between general anesthesia (GA) and nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) during CEA remains a subject of debate, with concerns regarding perioperative complications, particularly myocardial infarctions. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes associated with GA vs non-GA CEA using a large, nationwide database.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried for patients undergoing CEA between 2013 and 2020. Primary outcome measures including surgical outcomes and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between the 2 anesthesia methods, after 2:1 propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After propensity score matching, a total of 25 356 patients (16 904 in the GA and 8452 in the non-GA group) were included. Non-GA compared with GA CEA was associated with significantly shorter operative times (101.9, 95% CI: 100.5-103.3 vs 115.8 95% CI: 114.4-117.2 minutes, P < .001), reduced length of hospital stays (2.3, 95% CI: 2.15-2.4 vs 2.5, 95% CI: 2.4-2.6 days, P < .001), and lower rates of 30-day postoperative complications, including myocardial infarctions (0.8% vs 1.2%, P = .003), unplanned intubations (0.8% vs 1.1%, P = .016), pneumonia (0.5% vs 1%, P < .001), and urinary tract infections (0.4% vs 0.7%, P = .003). These outcomes were notably more pronounced in the younger (≤70 years) and high morbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists 3-5) cohorts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this nationwide registry-based study, non-GA CEA was associated with better short-term outcomes in terms of perioperative complications, compared with GA CEA. The findings suggest that non-GA CEA may be a safer alternative, especially in younger patients and those with more comorbidities.</p>","PeriodicalId":19276,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"General Versus Nongeneral Anesthesia for Carotid Endarterectomy: A Prospective Multicenter Registry-Based Study on 25 000 Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Victor Gabriel El-Hajj, Abdul Karim Ghaith, Maria Gharios, Kareem El Naamani, Elias Atallah, Steven Glener, Karl John Habashy, Harry Hoang, Saman Sizdahkhani, Nikolaos Mouchtouris, Anand Kaul, Adrian Elmi-Terander, Stavropoula Tjoumakaris, M Reid Gooch, Robert H Rosenwasser, Pascal Jabbour\",\"doi\":\"10.1227/neu.0000000000002887\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a well-established treatment option for carotid stenosis. The choice between general anesthesia (GA) and nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) during CEA remains a subject of debate, with concerns regarding perioperative complications, particularly myocardial infarctions. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes associated with GA vs non-GA CEA using a large, nationwide database.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried for patients undergoing CEA between 2013 and 2020. Primary outcome measures including surgical outcomes and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between the 2 anesthesia methods, after 2:1 propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After propensity score matching, a total of 25 356 patients (16 904 in the GA and 8452 in the non-GA group) were included. Non-GA compared with GA CEA was associated with significantly shorter operative times (101.9, 95% CI: 100.5-103.3 vs 115.8 95% CI: 114.4-117.2 minutes, P < .001), reduced length of hospital stays (2.3, 95% CI: 2.15-2.4 vs 2.5, 95% CI: 2.4-2.6 days, P < .001), and lower rates of 30-day postoperative complications, including myocardial infarctions (0.8% vs 1.2%, P = .003), unplanned intubations (0.8% vs 1.1%, P = .016), pneumonia (0.5% vs 1%, P < .001), and urinary tract infections (0.4% vs 0.7%, P = .003). These outcomes were notably more pronounced in the younger (≤70 years) and high morbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists 3-5) cohorts.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this nationwide registry-based study, non-GA CEA was associated with better short-term outcomes in terms of perioperative complications, compared with GA CEA. The findings suggest that non-GA CEA may be a safer alternative, especially in younger patients and those with more comorbidities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19276,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurosurgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002887\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000002887","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:颈动脉内膜剥脱术(CEA)是治疗颈动脉狭窄的一种行之有效的方法。在 CEA 中选择全身麻醉(GA)还是非全身麻醉(Non-GA)仍是一个争论不休的话题,人们对围手术期并发症,尤其是心肌梗死表示担忧。本研究旨在利用一个全国性大型数据库,评估全身麻醉与非全身麻醉 CEA 的相关结果:方法: 对2013年至2020年期间接受CEA手术的患者进行全国手术质量改进项目数据库查询。在进行2:1倾向得分匹配后,比较了两种麻醉方法的主要结局指标,包括手术结局和术后30天并发症:经过倾向评分匹配后,共纳入了 25 356 例患者(GA 组 16 904 例,非 GA 组 8452 例)。非 GA 组 CEA 与 GA 组 CEA 相比,手术时间明显缩短(101.9 分钟,95% CI:100.5-103.3 分钟 vs 115.8 分钟,95% CI:114.4-117.2 分钟,P < .001),住院时间缩短(2.3 天,95% CI:2.15-2.4 天 vs 2.5 天,95% CI:2.4-2.6 天,P < .001),术后 30 天并发症发生率较低,包括心肌梗塞(0.8% vs 1.2%,P = .003)、意外插管(0.8% vs 1.1%,P = .016)、肺炎(0.5% vs 1%,P < .001)和尿路感染(0.4% vs 0.7%,P = .003)。这些结果在较年轻(≤70 岁)和高发病率(美国麻醉医师协会 3-5 级)组别中更为明显:结论:在这项基于全国登记的研究中,与GA CEA相比,非GA CEA在围手术期并发症方面具有更好的短期疗效。研究结果表明,非GA CEA可能是一种更安全的选择,尤其是对于年轻患者和合并症较多的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
General Versus Nongeneral Anesthesia for Carotid Endarterectomy: A Prospective Multicenter Registry-Based Study on 25 000 Patients.

Background and objectives: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a well-established treatment option for carotid stenosis. The choice between general anesthesia (GA) and nongeneral anesthesia (non-GA) during CEA remains a subject of debate, with concerns regarding perioperative complications, particularly myocardial infarctions. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes associated with GA vs non-GA CEA using a large, nationwide database.

Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried for patients undergoing CEA between 2013 and 2020. Primary outcome measures including surgical outcomes and 30-day postoperative complications were compared between the 2 anesthesia methods, after 2:1 propensity score matching.

Results: After propensity score matching, a total of 25 356 patients (16 904 in the GA and 8452 in the non-GA group) were included. Non-GA compared with GA CEA was associated with significantly shorter operative times (101.9, 95% CI: 100.5-103.3 vs 115.8 95% CI: 114.4-117.2 minutes, P < .001), reduced length of hospital stays (2.3, 95% CI: 2.15-2.4 vs 2.5, 95% CI: 2.4-2.6 days, P < .001), and lower rates of 30-day postoperative complications, including myocardial infarctions (0.8% vs 1.2%, P = .003), unplanned intubations (0.8% vs 1.1%, P = .016), pneumonia (0.5% vs 1%, P < .001), and urinary tract infections (0.4% vs 0.7%, P = .003). These outcomes were notably more pronounced in the younger (≤70 years) and high morbidity (American Society of Anesthesiologists 3-5) cohorts.

Conclusion: In this nationwide registry-based study, non-GA CEA was associated with better short-term outcomes in terms of perioperative complications, compared with GA CEA. The findings suggest that non-GA CEA may be a safer alternative, especially in younger patients and those with more comorbidities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neurosurgery
Neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
898
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurosurgery, the official journal of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, publishes research on clinical and experimental neurosurgery covering the very latest developments in science, technology, and medicine. For professionals aware of the rapid pace of developments in the field, this journal is nothing short of indispensable as the most complete window on the contemporary field of neurosurgery. Neurosurgery is the fastest-growing journal in the field, with a worldwide reputation for reliable coverage delivered with a fresh and dynamic outlook.
×
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