Park Yong-Seok, Choi Dae-Kee, Kang Jiwon, Park Jihoon, Joung Kyoung-Woon, Choi In-Cheol
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
J Thorac Dis. 2019 Apr;11(4):1421-1427. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.03.56.
Percutaneous atrial septal defect (ASD) device closure is usually performed under general anesthesia (GA) because it can ensure protection of the airway from the effects of insertion of the transesophageal echocardiogram probe insertion. However, recent studies have suggested that this procedure can be performed safely under deep sedation also. Thus, we compared the efficacy of using monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with deep sedation versus GA to perform this procedure and the post-procedural outcomes and incidence of complications associated with these two methods of anesthesia.
We retrospectively analyzed cases involving 311 patients who underwent ASD device closures from January 2011 to December 2015. The demographics, laboratory values, echocardiographic findings, and intraoperative data of these patients were assessed. GA was induced with a continuous infusion of propofol and remifentanil using a target control infusion pump. MAC with deep sedation was performed by using a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil. The primary outcome of the study was the overall complication rate that included the incidence of aspiration pneumonia, sore throat, dysphagia, vocal cord palsy, neurologic complication, device-related complications, and other minor complications during the procedure; and the secondary outcomes were the turnover time, procedure time, and duration of hospital stay.
No significant differences were observed in the complication rate and length of the hospital stay between the MAC group and the GA group. However, the turnover time was significantly longer in the GA group than in the MAC group (56.2±13.3 51.0±15.4 min, P=0.004).
MAC under deep sedation is an effective and safe anesthetic option comparable to GA for performing percutaneous ASD device closures.
经皮房间隔缺损(ASD)封堵术通常在全身麻醉(GA)下进行,因为这样可以确保在插入经食管超声心动图探头时保护气道免受影响。然而,最近的研究表明,该手术在深度镇静下也能安全进行。因此,我们比较了使用监护麻醉(MAC)联合深度镇静与GA进行该手术的疗效以及这两种麻醉方法的术后结果和并发症发生率。
我们回顾性分析了2011年1月至2015年12月期间311例行ASD封堵术患者的病例。评估了这些患者的人口统计学、实验室检查值、超声心动图检查结果和术中数据。GA通过使用靶控输注泵持续输注丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼诱导。MAC联合深度镇静通过持续输注右美托咪定和瑞芬太尼进行。该研究的主要结局是总体并发症发生率,包括术中吸入性肺炎、咽痛、吞咽困难、声带麻痹、神经并发症、器械相关并发症和其他轻微并发症的发生率;次要结局是周转时间、手术时间和住院时间。
MAC组和GA组在并发症发生率和住院时间方面未观察到显著差异。然而,GA组的周转时间明显长于MAC组(56.2±13.3对51.0±15.4分钟,P = 0.004)。
深度镇静下的MAC是一种与GA相当的有效且安全的麻醉选择,可用于经皮ASD封堵术。