A prospective cohort study comparing monitored anesthesia care and intubated general anesthesia in cardiac surgery involving cardiopulmonary bypass.

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and safety of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) versus intubated general anesthesia (IGA) for patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).

METHODS

This prospective observational study included patients scheduled for cardiac surgery involving CPB at our institution between April 2012 and February 2017. The enrolled patients were categorized into MAC and IGA groups. MAC involved local anesthesia at the sternotomy site, sedation with dexmedetomidine, analgesia with remifentanil/sufentanil, and electroacupuncture (EA). Eleven patients underwent MAC, and 13 patients received IGA. There were no instances of conversion from MAC to IGA, and both groups exhibited no major complications. The demographic characteristics, baseline parameters, and operative variables were comparable between the two groups.

RESULTS

Intraoperative opioid consumption was significantly lower in the MAC group compared to the IGA group (P < 0.001). The time to oral intake of liquids was significantly shorter in the MAC group (2.14 ± 0.90 h) compared to the IGA group (22.31 ± 3.33 h) (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the intensive care unit length of stay (ICU-LOS) and perioperative vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS) were significantly reduced in the MAC group compared to the IGA group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

MAC emerges as a safe and viable alternative to general anesthesia for specific patient groups undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. Furthermore, it may enhance postoperative recovery and minimize postoperative complications compared to IGA.