Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2020 Nov;34(11):3052-3058. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2020.03.039. Epub 2020 Apr 19.
The objective of the present study was to determine whether regional anesthesia in addition to general anesthesia was associated with improved outcomes compared with general anesthesia alone in minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.
Retrospective cohort study.
This study examined patients across multiple hospital institutions using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program dataset.
Patients who underwent minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy were identified and grouped according to general plus regional anesthesia versus general anesthesia alone.
Using multivariate logistic regression, outcomes, including 30-day mortality, respiratory complications, infection, blood clots, reintubation, return to the operating room, and length of hospital stay, were examined. Of the 463 patients who underwent minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, 398 met study inclusion criteria. General and regional anesthesia were administered to 108 patients in the study, with the remainder receiving only general anesthesia. Multivariate regression demonstrated no difference in the primary outcome of 30-day mortality (0.93% for regional and general anesthesia, 2.07% for general anesthesia alone [odds ratio 0.49; p = 0.534]). There was no significant difference for any secondary outcome including return to the operating room, failure to wean from the ventilator, reintubation, surgical site infection, pneumonia, renal insufficiency and failure, cardiac arrest, acute myocardial infarction, transfusion, venous thromboembolism, urinary tract infection, length of hospital stay, or total number of complications per patient.
Despite potential benefits of regional anesthesia for minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, the present study did not show significant differences in any outcomes between regional and general anesthesia versus general anesthesia alone.
本研究旨在确定与单纯全身麻醉相比,全身麻醉联合区域麻醉是否能改善微创 Ivor Lewis 食管切除术的结果。
回顾性队列研究。
本研究使用美国外科医师学院国家手术质量改进计划数据集,在多个医院机构检查患者。
确定接受微创 Ivor Lewis 食管切除术的患者,并根据全身麻醉联合区域麻醉与单纯全身麻醉进行分组。
使用多变量逻辑回归,检查包括 30 天死亡率、呼吸并发症、感染、血栓、再次插管、返回手术室和住院时间在内的结果。在接受微创 Ivor Lewis 食管切除术的 463 名患者中,有 398 名符合研究纳入标准。研究中 108 名患者接受全身麻醉联合区域麻醉,其余患者仅接受全身麻醉。多变量回归显示 30 天死亡率的主要结局无差异(全身麻醉联合区域麻醉组为 0.93%,单纯全身麻醉组为 2.07%[比值比 0.49;p = 0.534])。任何次要结局,包括返回手术室、无法脱机、再次插管、手术部位感染、肺炎、肾功能不全和衰竭、心脏骤停、急性心肌梗死、输血、静脉血栓栓塞、尿路感染、住院时间或每位患者的总并发症数均无显著差异。
尽管微创 Ivor Lewis 食管切除术采用区域麻醉有潜在益处,但本研究未显示区域麻醉与单纯全身麻醉相比在任何结局方面有显著差异。