Mukherjee Dipankar, Collins Devon T, Liu Chang, Ha Neul, Jim Jeffrey
Department of Surgery, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, VA, USA.
Department of Community and Global Health, Inova Heart and Vascular Institute, Inova Fairfax Hospital, College of Health and Human Services, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Vascular. 2020 Dec;28(6):784-793. doi: 10.1177/1708538120924158. Epub 2020 May 14.
The primary purpose of this study was to examine any potential difference in clinical outcomes between transcarotid artery revascularization performed under local anesthesia compared with general anesthesia by utilizing a large national database.
The primary outcome of the study was a composite endpoint of postoperative in-hospital stroke, myocardial infarction and mortality following transcarotid artery revascularization for the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included a composite outcome of postoperative in-hospital stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction and mortality along with several subsets of its components and each individual component, flow reversal time (min), radiation dose (GY/cm), contrast volume utilized (mL), total procedure time (min), extended total length of stay (>1 day) and extended postoperative length of stay (>1 day). Statistical analyses employed both descriptive measures to characterize the study population and analytic measures such as multivariable mixed-effect linear and logistic regressions using both unmatched and propensity-score matched cohorts.
A total of 2609 patients undergoing transcarotid artery revascularization between the years 2016 and 2018 in the US were identified, with 82.3% performed under general anesthesia and 17.7% under local anesthesia. The primary composite outcome was observed in 2.3% of general anesthesia patients versus 2.6% of local anesthesia patients ( = 0.808). The rate of postoperative transient ischemic attack and/or myocardial infarction was 1.6% with general anesthesia versus 1.1% with local anesthesia ( = 0.511). For adjusted regression analysis, general anesthesia and local anesthesia were comparable in terms of primary outcome (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.27-1.93, = 0.515). As for the secondary outcomes, no significant differences were found except for contrast, where the results demonstrated significantly less need for contrast with procedures performed under general anesthesia (coefficient: 4.94; 95% CI: 1.34-8.54, = 0.007). A trend towards significance was observed for lower rate of postoperative transient ischemic attack and/or myocardial infarction (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.09-1.18, = 0.088) and lower flow reversal time under local anesthesia (coefficient: -0.94: 95% CI: -2.1-0.22, = 0.111).
Excellent outcomes from transcarotid artery revascularization for carotid stenosis were observed in the VQI database between the years 2016 and 2018, under both local anesthesia and general anesthesia. The data demonstrate the choice of anesthesia for transcarotid artery revascularization does not appear to have any effect on clinical outcomes. Surgical teams should perform transcarotid artery revascularization under the anesthesia type they are most comfortable with.
本研究的主要目的是利用一个大型国家数据库,研究在局部麻醉与全身麻醉下进行颈动脉血管重建术的临床结局是否存在任何潜在差异。
该研究的主要结局是首次进行颈动脉血管重建术后住院期间发生卒中、心肌梗死和死亡的复合终点。次要结局包括术后住院期间发生卒中、短暂性脑缺血发作、心肌梗死和死亡的复合结局及其几个组成部分的子集以及每个单独的组成部分、血流逆转时间(分钟)、辐射剂量(戈瑞/厘米)、使用的造影剂体积(毫升)、总手术时间(分钟)、延长的总住院时间(>1天)和延长的术后住院时间(>1天)。统计分析采用描述性方法来描述研究人群,并采用分析方法,如使用未匹配和倾向得分匹配队列的多变量混合效应线性和逻辑回归。
在美国,共识别出2016年至2018年间接受颈动脉血管重建术的2609例患者,其中82.3%在全身麻醉下进行,17.7%在局部麻醉下进行。全身麻醉患者中观察到主要复合结局的比例为2.3%,而局部麻醉患者为2.6%(P = 0.808)。全身麻醉术后短暂性脑缺血发作和/或心肌梗死的发生率为1.6%,局部麻醉为1.1%(P = 0.511)。对于调整后的回归分析,全身麻醉和局部麻醉在主要结局方面具有可比性(比值比:0.72;95%置信区间:0.27 - 1.93,P = 0.515)。至于次要结局,除造影剂外未发现显著差异,结果表明全身麻醉下进行的手术对造影剂的需求显著减少(系数:4.94;95%置信区间:1.34 - 8.54,P = 0.007)。观察到局部麻醉下术后短暂性脑缺血发作和/或心肌梗死发生率较低(比值比:0.33;95%置信区间:0.09 - 1.18,P = 0.088)以及血流逆转时间较短(系数: - 0.94:95%置信区间: - 2.1 - 0.22,P = 0.111)的显著趋势。
在2016年至2018年间的VQI数据库中,观察到在局部麻醉和全身麻醉下进行颈动脉狭窄血管重建术均取得了优异的结局。数据表明,颈动脉血管重建术的麻醉选择似乎对临床结局没有任何影响。手术团队应在他们最熟悉的麻醉类型下进行颈动脉血管重建术。