Division of Cardiology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Center for Pediatric Clinical Effectiveness, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Leonard Davis Institute and Center for Cardiovascular Outcomes, Quality, and Evaluative Research, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Mid America Heart Institute St. Luke's Health System, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Feb 22;14(4):401-413. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.054.
The objective of this study was to assess contemporary use of operator directed sedation (ODS) and anesthesiologist care (AC) in the pediatric/congenital cardiac catheterization laboratory (PCCL), specifically evaluating whether the use of operator-directed sedation was associated with increased risk of major adverse events.
The safety of ODS relative to AC during PCCL procedures has been questioned.
A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was performed studying procedures habitually performed with ODS or AC at IMPACT (Improving Adult and Congenital Treatment) registry hospitals using ODS for ≥5% of cases. The risks for major adverse events (MAE) for ODS and AC cases were compared, adjusted for case mix. Current recommendations were evaluated by comparing the ratio of observed to expected MAE for cases in which ODS was inappropriate (inconsistent with those guidelines) with those for similar risk AC cases, as well as those in which ODS or AC was appropriate.
Of the hospitals submitting data to IMPACT, 28 of 101 met inclusion criteria. Of the 7,042 cases performed using ODS at these centers, 88% would be inappropriate. Use of ODS was associated with lower likelihood of MAE both in observed results (p < 0.0001) and after adjusting for case-mix (odds ratio: 0.81; p = 0.006). Use of AC was also associated with longer adjusted fluoroscopy and procedure times (p < 0.0001 for both). The observed/expected ratio for ODS cases with high pre-procedural risk (inappropriate for ODS) was significantly lower than that for AC cases with comparable pre-procedural risk. Across a range of pre-procedural risks, there was no stratum in which risk for MAE was lower for AC than ODS.
Across a range of hospitals, ODS was used safely and with improved efficiency. Clinical judgment better identified cases in which ODS could be used than pre-procedural risk score. This should inform future guidelines for the use of ODS and AC in the catheterization laboratory.
本研究旨在评估当代操作者指导镇静(ODS)和麻醉师照护(AC)在儿科/先天性心脏导管室(PCCL)中的使用情况,具体评估操作者指导镇静的使用是否与主要不良事件风险增加相关。
在 PCCL 手术中,ODS 的安全性相对于 AC 受到质疑。
进行了一项多中心、回顾性队列研究,对 IMPACT(改善成人和先天性治疗)登记处医院中习惯性使用 ODS 或 AC 进行的操作进行研究,这些医院在≥5%的病例中使用 ODS。比较了 ODS 和 AC 病例的主要不良事件(MAE)风险,根据病例组合进行了调整。通过比较 ODS 不适当(与这些指南不一致)的病例与类似风险的 AC 病例以及 ODS 或 AC 适当的病例的观察到的 MAE 与预期 MAE 的比值,评估了当前的建议。
在向 IMPACT 提交数据的医院中,有 28 家符合纳入标准。在这些中心使用 ODS 进行的 7042 例手术中,88%是不适当的。在观察结果中(p<0.0001)和在调整病例组合后(优势比:0.81;p=0.006),使用 ODS 与 MAE 发生的可能性较低相关。使用 AC 也与更长的调整透视和手术时间相关(p<0.0001 均如此)。高术前风险(不适合 ODS)的 ODS 病例的观察/预期比值明显低于具有可比术前风险的 AC 病例。在一系列术前风险中,AC 病例的 MAE 风险低于 ODS 病例的风险分层不存在。
在一系列医院中,ODS 的使用安全且效率提高。临床判断比术前风险评分更能识别可以使用 ODS 的病例。这应该为导管室中 ODS 和 AC 的使用提供未来的指南。