{"title":"经股动脉主动脉瓣置换术患者不同麻醉技术与预后之间的关系。","authors":"Ahmad Abuzaid, Ibrahim AbdelAal, Ahmed Galal","doi":"10.4103/sja.sja_826_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is an increasing number of patients undergoing transfemoral aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with sedation. There is limited data assessing the efficacy and safety of the different types of sedative drugs. The objective was to compare two sedation techniques with regard to the need for vasoactive support, respiratory support, rate of conversion to general anesthesia (GA), common perioperative morbidities, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and in-hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review study conducted among patients who underwent TAVR at a specialized cardiac center between January 2016 and December 2019. Data collection included patient diagnosis, preoperative comorbidities, intraoperative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 289 patients received local anesthesia; 210 received propofol infusion and 79 received a mixed propofol-ketamine infusion (Ketofol). The average age was 75.5 ± 8.9 years and 58.1% of the patients were females. Comparing propofol and ketofol groups, 31.2% and 34.2% of the patients required drug support, 7.6% and 6.3% required conversion to GA, 46.7% and 59.5% required respiratory support, respectively. These intraoperative outcomes were not significantly different between groups, <i>P</i> = 0.540, <i>P</i> = 0.707, and <i>P</i> = 0.105, respectively. In-hospital 30-day mortality in propofol and ketofol groups were 1.9% and 3.8%, respectively, <i>P</i> = 0.396. In both groups, the median post-procedure coronary care unit stay was 26 hours while post-procedure hospital stay was 3 days.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were no significant differences in perioperative or postoperative outcomes in TAVR patients receiving either propofol or ketofol. Propofol infusion, either alone or with ketamine, is reliable and safe, with minimal side effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":21533,"journal":{"name":"Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia","volume":"18 2","pages":"197-204"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11033899/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The association between different anesthetic techniques and outcomes in patients undergoing transfemoral aortic valve replacement.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmad Abuzaid, Ibrahim AbdelAal, Ahmed Galal\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/sja.sja_826_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is an increasing number of patients undergoing transfemoral aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with sedation. There is limited data assessing the efficacy and safety of the different types of sedative drugs. The objective was to compare two sedation techniques with regard to the need for vasoactive support, respiratory support, rate of conversion to general anesthesia (GA), common perioperative morbidities, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and in-hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review study conducted among patients who underwent TAVR at a specialized cardiac center between January 2016 and December 2019. Data collection included patient diagnosis, preoperative comorbidities, intraoperative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 289 patients received local anesthesia; 210 received propofol infusion and 79 received a mixed propofol-ketamine infusion (Ketofol). The average age was 75.5 ± 8.9 years and 58.1% of the patients were females. Comparing propofol and ketofol groups, 31.2% and 34.2% of the patients required drug support, 7.6% and 6.3% required conversion to GA, 46.7% and 59.5% required respiratory support, respectively. These intraoperative outcomes were not significantly different between groups, <i>P</i> = 0.540, <i>P</i> = 0.707, and <i>P</i> = 0.105, respectively. In-hospital 30-day mortality in propofol and ketofol groups were 1.9% and 3.8%, respectively, <i>P</i> = 0.396. In both groups, the median post-procedure coronary care unit stay was 26 hours while post-procedure hospital stay was 3 days.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were no significant differences in perioperative or postoperative outcomes in TAVR patients receiving either propofol or ketofol. Propofol infusion, either alone or with ketamine, is reliable and safe, with minimal side effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21533,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\"18 2\",\"pages\":\"197-204\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11033899/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_826_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_826_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The association between different anesthetic techniques and outcomes in patients undergoing transfemoral aortic valve replacement.
Background: There is an increasing number of patients undergoing transfemoral aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with sedation. There is limited data assessing the efficacy and safety of the different types of sedative drugs. The objective was to compare two sedation techniques with regard to the need for vasoactive support, respiratory support, rate of conversion to general anesthesia (GA), common perioperative morbidities, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and in-hospital mortality.
Methods: A retrospective chart review study conducted among patients who underwent TAVR at a specialized cardiac center between January 2016 and December 2019. Data collection included patient diagnosis, preoperative comorbidities, intraoperative outcomes, and postoperative outcomes.
Results: A total of 289 patients received local anesthesia; 210 received propofol infusion and 79 received a mixed propofol-ketamine infusion (Ketofol). The average age was 75.5 ± 8.9 years and 58.1% of the patients were females. Comparing propofol and ketofol groups, 31.2% and 34.2% of the patients required drug support, 7.6% and 6.3% required conversion to GA, 46.7% and 59.5% required respiratory support, respectively. These intraoperative outcomes were not significantly different between groups, P = 0.540, P = 0.707, and P = 0.105, respectively. In-hospital 30-day mortality in propofol and ketofol groups were 1.9% and 3.8%, respectively, P = 0.396. In both groups, the median post-procedure coronary care unit stay was 26 hours while post-procedure hospital stay was 3 days.
Conclusions: There were no significant differences in perioperative or postoperative outcomes in TAVR patients receiving either propofol or ketofol. Propofol infusion, either alone or with ketamine, is reliable and safe, with minimal side effects.