Stasiowski Michał Jan, Zmarzły Nikola, Grabarek Beniamin Oskar
Chair and Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia, 40-555 Katowice, Poland.
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, 5th Regional Hospital, 41-200 Sosnowiec, Poland.
J Clin Med. 2024 Dec 28;14(1):120. doi: 10.3390/jcm14010120.
Eversion carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in awake patients is performed using cervical plexus blocks (CPBs) with or without carotid artery sheath infiltration (CASI) under ultrasound guidance. Although adequacy of anesthesia (AoA) guidance monitors nociception/antinociception balance, its impact on intraoperative analgesia quality and perioperative outcomes in awake CEA remains unexplored. Existing literature lacks evidence on whether AoA-guided anesthesia enhances clinical outcomes over standard techniques. This study aimed to assess the role of AoA guidance in improving intraoperative analgesia and perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing CEA with CPBs alone or with CASI compared to standard practice. A randomized controlled trial included 184 patients divided into three groups: CPBs with intravenous rescue fentanyl (IRF) and lidocaine (LID) guided by hemodynamic observation (C group), AoA-guided IRF and LID (AoA group), and AoA-guided IRF, LID, and CASI (AoA-CASI group). Primary outcomes included perioperative adverse events, and secondary outcomes assessed rescue medication demand and hemodynamic stability. Analysis of 172 patients revealed no significant differences between groups in perioperative adverse events or hemodynamic parameters ( > 0.05). However, the AoA-CASI group demonstrated significantly reduced IRF and LID usage compared to the C and AoA groups ( < 0.001). No significant advantage was observed between the AoA and C groups regarding adverse events ( = 0.1). AoA-guided anesthesia with or without CASI does not significantly reduce perioperative adverse events or improve hemodynamic stability in awake CEA. Clinical implications suggest that focusing on surgical technique optimization may yield greater benefits in reducing adverse events compared to advanced anesthetic monitoring. Further studies are warranted to explore alternative approaches to enhance clinical outcomes.
清醒患者的外翻式颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)在超声引导下使用颈丛阻滞(CPB),可联合或不联合颈动脉鞘浸润(CASI)进行。尽管麻醉充分性(AoA)引导可监测伤害感受/抗伤害感受平衡,但它对清醒CEA术中镇痛质量和围手术期结局的影响仍未得到探索。现有文献缺乏关于AoA引导麻醉是否比标准技术能改善临床结局的证据。本研究旨在评估与标准做法相比,AoA引导在改善单独使用CPB或联合CASI进行CEA患者的术中镇痛和围手术期结局中的作用。一项随机对照试验纳入了184例患者,分为三组:由血流动力学观察引导的静脉注射抢救性芬太尼(IRF)和利多卡因(LID)的CPB组(C组)、AoA引导的IRF和LID组(AoA组)以及AoA引导的IRF、LID和CASI组(AoA-CASI组)。主要结局包括围手术期不良事件,次要结局评估抢救药物需求和血流动力学稳定性。对172例患者的分析显示,各组在围手术期不良事件或血流动力学参数方面无显著差异(>0.05)。然而,与C组和AoA组相比,AoA-CASI组的IRF和LID使用量显著减少(<0.001)。在不良事件方面,AoA组和C组之间未观察到显著优势(=0.1)。在清醒CEA中,无论有无CASI的AoA引导麻醉均不能显著减少围手术期不良事件或改善血流动力学稳定性。临床意义表明,与先进的麻醉监测相比,专注于手术技术优化可能在减少不良事件方面产生更大益处。有必要进行进一步研究以探索改善临床结局的替代方法。