Suppr超能文献

现代下肢旁路手术在退伍军人人群中的麻醉类型的结果。

Modern Lower Extremity Bypass Outcomes by Anesthesia Type in the Veteran Population.

机构信息

Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA; Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Central Virginia Veterans Administration Health System, Richmond, VA.

Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA.

出版信息

Ann Vasc Surg. 2022 Mar;80:187-195. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2021.08.028. Epub 2021 Oct 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Lower extremity bypass (LEB) revascularization can be performed under general (GA) or neuraxial anesthesia (NA). Studies show that the use of NA may decrease morbidity, 30-day mortality, and hospital length-of-stay (LOS). The goal of our analysis is to examine the differences in postsurgical outcomes following LEB between patients who undergo GA compared to NA in the Veteran Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) database.

METHODS

After IRB approval, the VASQIP database was assessed for patients who underwent LEB between 1998-2018. Only infrainguinal bypass procedures and anesthesia type classified as "general," "epidural," or "spinal" were included. The neuraxial cohort includes both spinal and epidural anesthesia patients. The Risk Analysis Index (RAI), a validated measure of frailty, was additionally calculated for each patient. Chi squared, paired t-test, and binary logistic regression were used to compare the cohorts.

RESULTS

During this period, 22,960 veterans underwent LEB recorded in VASQIP. Compared to those who underwent surgery under GA, patients with procedures performed using NA were older (66.4 ± 9.6 years vs. 65.3 ± 9 years respectively; P <0.001) and more frail (average RAI score 25.7 ± 7.0 vs. 24.9 ± 6.7; P < 0.001). Operative time was shorter in the NA group (4.1 ± 1.7 hrs vs. 4.7 ± 3.0 hrs; P < 0.001) and fewer cases were emergent (1.55% vs. 4.13%; P <0.001). Patients in the GA group had higher rates of postoperative prolonged ileus (0.31% vs. 0.00%; P = 0.03), pneumonia (1.60% vs. 1.06%; P = 0.025), deep wound infection (2.67% vs. 2.61%; P = 0.01), sepsis (1.68% vs. 0.79%; P < 0.001), reintubation (1.80% vs. 1.30%) (P = 0.04),and number of packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfused intraoperatively (0.39 ± 1.21 units vs. 0.22 ± 0.79 units; P <0.001). There was no significant difference in rate of graft failure, return to the OR, myocardial infarction, death, or LOS. In regression analysis, those undergoing NA were less likely to require pRBC transfusion intraoperatively (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.31-0.61; P < 0.001), however no other outcomes reached statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Although younger and less frail, veteran patients undergoing GA for lower extremity revascularization had higher rates of postoperative ileus, pneumonia, deep wound infection, sepsis, and need for transfusion as compared to those undergoing NA. There was no significant difference in the rate of other major complications, myocardial infarction, death or LOS. After adjustment, only intraoperative transfusion remained statistically significant, likely reflecting longer and more complex cases for those that undergo general anesthesia rather than the effect of anesthetic choice itself.

摘要

背景

下肢旁路(LEB)血运重建可在全身麻醉(GA)或脊神经麻醉(NA)下进行。研究表明,NA 的使用可能会降低发病率、30 天死亡率和住院时间(LOS)。我们分析的目的是检查在退伍军人事务部手术质量改进计划(VASQIP)数据库中,接受 GA 与 NA 的患者在 LEB 手术后的手术结果差异。

方法

在获得机构审查委员会批准后,评估了 1998 年至 2018 年期间在 VASQIP 数据库中接受 LEB 的患者。仅包括下肢旁路手术和分类为“全身”、“硬膜外”或“脊髓”的麻醉类型。脊神经麻醉组包括脊髓和硬膜外麻醉患者。还为每位患者计算了风险分析指数(RAI),这是一种经过验证的脆弱性衡量标准。使用卡方检验、配对 t 检验和二项逻辑回归来比较队列。

结果

在此期间,VASQIP 记录了 22960 名接受 LEB 的退伍军人。与接受 GA 手术的患者相比,接受 NA 手术的患者年龄更大(分别为 66.4 ± 9.6 岁和 65.3 ± 9 岁;P <0.001)且更脆弱(平均 RAI 评分分别为 25.7 ± 7.0 和 24.9 ± 6.7;P <0.001)。NA 组的手术时间更短(4.1 ± 1.7 小时与 4.7 ± 3.0 小时;P <0.001),紧急手术病例更少(1.55%与 4.13%;P <0.001)。GA 组术后出现肠麻痹的发生率更高(0.31%与 0.00%;P = 0.03)、肺炎(1.60%与 1.06%;P = 0.025)、深部伤口感染(2.67%与 2.61%;P = 0.01)、败血症(1.68%与 0.79%;P <0.001)、再插管(1.80%与 1.30%)(P = 0.04)和术中输血量(0.39 ± 1.21 单位与 0.22 ± 0.79 单位;P <0.001)更多。在回归分析中,接受 NA 的患者术中更不可能需要输血(OR:0.43;95%CI:0.31-0.61;P <0.001),但其他结果没有达到统计学意义。

结论

尽管接受 GA 的老年患者更年轻、脆弱程度更低,但与接受 NA 的患者相比,术后出现肠麻痹、肺炎、深部伤口感染、败血症和输血的几率更高。其他主要并发症、心肌梗死、死亡或 LOS 的发生率没有显著差异。调整后,只有术中输血仍具有统计学意义,这可能反映了接受全身麻醉的患者手术时间更长且更复杂,而不是麻醉选择本身的影响。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验