{"title":"局部麻醉与全身麻醉在急诊肾下腹主动脉瘤血管内修复中的应用。","authors":"Renxi Li, Anton Sidawy, Bao-Ngoc Nguyen","doi":"10.1177/15266028251320516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While general anesthesia (GA) has been the common choice of anesthesia for patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), local anesthesia (LA) has been proposed as an effective alternative for eligible patients. However, the choice of anesthesia in emergency EVAR situations remains less explored. Therefore, this study aimed to perform a retrospective analysis to compare the 30-day outcomes of patients who underwent emergency infrarenal EVAR receiving either LA or GA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent emergency infrarenal EVAR were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) targeted database from 2012 to 2022. Exclusion criteria included age less than 18 years, acute intraoperative conversion to open surgery, and intraoperative anesthesia conversion. The 1:1 propensity-score matching and multivariable logistic regression were separately used to balance preoperative factors between patients who received LA and GA. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 258 (14.58%) and 1512 (85.42%) patients who underwent emergency EVAR under LA and GA, respectively. After multivariable analysis, patients who were under LA had lower mortality (11.24% vs 13.96%, aOR=0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.395-0.944, p=0.03), pulmonary complications (10.85% vs 17.59%, aOR=0.495, 95% CI=0.322-0.76, p<0.01), renal complications (5.04% vs 7.47%, aOR=0.545, 95% CI=0.303-0.983, p=0.04), wound complications (0.39% vs 3.64%, aOR=0.089, 95% CI=0.012-0.649, p=0.02), and 30-day readmission (6.59% vs 11.24%, aOR=0.564, 95% CI=0.334-0.953, p=0.03). Moreover, patients under LA had shorter operative time (p<0.01) and shorter length of stay (p=0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The LA is associated with better 30-day outcomes in emergency infrarenal EVAR. Therefore, in emergency EVAR, it may be advisable to consider LA over GA for eligible patients. Prospective studies in the future can be warranted to further support this anesthesia practice.</p><p><strong>Clinical impact: </strong>The choice of anesthesia in emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remains unexplored. This study performed a retrospective analysis to compare the 30-day outcomes of patients who underwent emergency infrarenal EVAR receiving local anesthesia (LA) or general anesthesia (GA). After propensity-score matching/multivariable analysis to balance preoperative differences, patients under LA were found to have lower 30-day mortality, pulmonary, renal, and wound complications, 30-day readmission, shorter operative time, and shorter hospital stay. In emergency EVAR, it may be advisable to consider LA over GA for eligible patients. Prospective studies in the future can be warranted to further support this anesthesia practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":50210,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"15266028251320516"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Local Versus General Anesthesia in Emergency Endovascular Repair of Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.\",\"authors\":\"Renxi Li, Anton Sidawy, Bao-Ngoc Nguyen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15266028251320516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>While general anesthesia (GA) has been the common choice of anesthesia for patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), local anesthesia (LA) has been proposed as an effective alternative for eligible patients. However, the choice of anesthesia in emergency EVAR situations remains less explored. Therefore, this study aimed to perform a retrospective analysis to compare the 30-day outcomes of patients who underwent emergency infrarenal EVAR receiving either LA or GA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent emergency infrarenal EVAR were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) targeted database from 2012 to 2022. Exclusion criteria included age less than 18 years, acute intraoperative conversion to open surgery, and intraoperative anesthesia conversion. The 1:1 propensity-score matching and multivariable logistic regression were separately used to balance preoperative factors between patients who received LA and GA. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 258 (14.58%) and 1512 (85.42%) patients who underwent emergency EVAR under LA and GA, respectively. After multivariable analysis, patients who were under LA had lower mortality (11.24% vs 13.96%, aOR=0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.395-0.944, p=0.03), pulmonary complications (10.85% vs 17.59%, aOR=0.495, 95% CI=0.322-0.76, p<0.01), renal complications (5.04% vs 7.47%, aOR=0.545, 95% CI=0.303-0.983, p=0.04), wound complications (0.39% vs 3.64%, aOR=0.089, 95% CI=0.012-0.649, p=0.02), and 30-day readmission (6.59% vs 11.24%, aOR=0.564, 95% CI=0.334-0.953, p=0.03). Moreover, patients under LA had shorter operative time (p<0.01) and shorter length of stay (p=0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The LA is associated with better 30-day outcomes in emergency infrarenal EVAR. Therefore, in emergency EVAR, it may be advisable to consider LA over GA for eligible patients. Prospective studies in the future can be warranted to further support this anesthesia practice.</p><p><strong>Clinical impact: </strong>The choice of anesthesia in emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remains unexplored. This study performed a retrospective analysis to compare the 30-day outcomes of patients who underwent emergency infrarenal EVAR receiving local anesthesia (LA) or general anesthesia (GA). After propensity-score matching/multivariable analysis to balance preoperative differences, patients under LA were found to have lower 30-day mortality, pulmonary, renal, and wound complications, 30-day readmission, shorter operative time, and shorter hospital stay. In emergency EVAR, it may be advisable to consider LA over GA for eligible patients. Prospective studies in the future can be warranted to further support this anesthesia practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50210,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Endovascular Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"15266028251320516\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Endovascular Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028251320516\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Endovascular Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15266028251320516","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:虽然全身麻醉(GA)一直是血管内动脉瘤修复(EVAR)患者的常见麻醉选择,但局部麻醉(LA)已被提出作为符合条件的患者的有效选择。然而,在紧急EVAR情况下麻醉的选择仍然较少探索。因此,本研究旨在进行回顾性分析,比较接受LA或GA的急诊肾下EVAR患者的30天结局。方法:从2012年至2022年美国外科医师学会国家手术质量改进计划(ACS-NSQIP)目标数据库中确定急诊肾下EVAR患者。排除标准包括年龄小于18岁、术中急性转开、术中麻醉转开。分别采用1:1倾向评分匹配和多变量logistic回归来平衡接受LA和GA患者的术前因素。观察术后30天的预后。结果:LA和GA下分别有258例(14.58%)和1512例(85.42%)患者行急诊EVAR。经多变量分析,LA组患者死亡率较低(11.24% vs 13.96%, aOR=0.61, 95%可信区间[CI]=0.395 ~ 0.944, p=0.03),肺部并发症较低(10.85% vs 17.59%, aOR=0.495, 95% CI=0.322 ~ 0.76, p)。结论:LA与急诊肾下EVAR的30天预后较好相关。因此,在急诊EVAR中,对于符合条件的患者,可能建议考虑LA而不是GA。未来的前瞻性研究可以保证进一步支持这种麻醉实践。临床影响:急诊血管内动脉瘤修复(EVAR)中麻醉的选择仍未明确。本研究进行了一项回顾性分析,比较了接受局部麻醉(LA)或全身麻醉(GA)的紧急肾下EVAR患者的30天结局。通过倾向评分匹配/多变量分析来平衡术前差异,发现LA组患者的30天死亡率、肺部、肾脏和伤口并发症、30天再入院率、更短的手术时间和更短的住院时间。在紧急EVAR中,对于符合条件的患者,考虑LA而不是GA可能是明智的。未来的前瞻性研究可以保证进一步支持这种麻醉实践。
Local Versus General Anesthesia in Emergency Endovascular Repair of Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.
Background: While general anesthesia (GA) has been the common choice of anesthesia for patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), local anesthesia (LA) has been proposed as an effective alternative for eligible patients. However, the choice of anesthesia in emergency EVAR situations remains less explored. Therefore, this study aimed to perform a retrospective analysis to compare the 30-day outcomes of patients who underwent emergency infrarenal EVAR receiving either LA or GA.
Methods: Patients who underwent emergency infrarenal EVAR were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) targeted database from 2012 to 2022. Exclusion criteria included age less than 18 years, acute intraoperative conversion to open surgery, and intraoperative anesthesia conversion. The 1:1 propensity-score matching and multivariable logistic regression were separately used to balance preoperative factors between patients who received LA and GA. Thirty-day postoperative outcomes were examined.
Results: There were 258 (14.58%) and 1512 (85.42%) patients who underwent emergency EVAR under LA and GA, respectively. After multivariable analysis, patients who were under LA had lower mortality (11.24% vs 13.96%, aOR=0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.395-0.944, p=0.03), pulmonary complications (10.85% vs 17.59%, aOR=0.495, 95% CI=0.322-0.76, p<0.01), renal complications (5.04% vs 7.47%, aOR=0.545, 95% CI=0.303-0.983, p=0.04), wound complications (0.39% vs 3.64%, aOR=0.089, 95% CI=0.012-0.649, p=0.02), and 30-day readmission (6.59% vs 11.24%, aOR=0.564, 95% CI=0.334-0.953, p=0.03). Moreover, patients under LA had shorter operative time (p<0.01) and shorter length of stay (p=0.02).
Conclusion: The LA is associated with better 30-day outcomes in emergency infrarenal EVAR. Therefore, in emergency EVAR, it may be advisable to consider LA over GA for eligible patients. Prospective studies in the future can be warranted to further support this anesthesia practice.
Clinical impact: The choice of anesthesia in emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remains unexplored. This study performed a retrospective analysis to compare the 30-day outcomes of patients who underwent emergency infrarenal EVAR receiving local anesthesia (LA) or general anesthesia (GA). After propensity-score matching/multivariable analysis to balance preoperative differences, patients under LA were found to have lower 30-day mortality, pulmonary, renal, and wound complications, 30-day readmission, shorter operative time, and shorter hospital stay. In emergency EVAR, it may be advisable to consider LA over GA for eligible patients. Prospective studies in the future can be warranted to further support this anesthesia practice.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Endovascular Therapy (formerly the Journal of Endovascular Surgery) was established in 1994 as a forum for all physicians, scientists, and allied healthcare professionals who are engaged or interested in peripheral endovascular techniques and technology. An official publication of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists (ISEVS), the Journal of Endovascular Therapy publishes peer-reviewed articles of interest to clinicians and researchers in the field of peripheral endovascular interventions.