Premium
Comparison of local versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Villablanca Pedro A.,
Mohananey Divyanshu,
Nikolic Katarina,
Bangalore Sripal,
Slovut David P.,
Mathew Verghese,
Thourani Vinod H.,
Rode'sCabau Josep,
NúñezGil Iván J.,
Shah Tina,
Gupta Tanush,
Briceno David F.,
Garcia Mario J.,
Gutsche Jacob T.,
Augoustides John G.,
Ramakrishna Harish
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.27207
Subject(s) - medicine , valve replacement , stroke (engine) , confidence interval , acute kidney injury , intensive care unit , myocardial infarction , inotrope , stenosis , cardiology , sedation , aortic valve stenosis , relative risk , meta analysis , anesthesia , odds ratio , aortic valve replacement , surgery , mechanical engineering , engineering
Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is typically performed under general anesthesia (GA). However, there is increasing data supporting the safety of performing TAVR under local anesthesia/conscious sedation (LA). We performed a meta‐analysis to gain better understanding of the safety and efficacy of LA versus GA in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Methods and Results We comprehensively searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. Effect sizes were summarized using risk ratios (RRs) difference of the mean (DM), and 95% CIs (confidence intervals) for dichotomous and continuous variables respectively. Twenty‐six studies and 10,572 patients were included in the meta‐analysis. The use of LA for TAVR was associated with lower overall 30‐day mortality (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57–0.93; P = 0.01), use of inotropic/vasopressor drugs (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28–0.72; P < 0.001), hospital length of stay (LOS) (DM, −2.09; 95% CI, −3.02 to −1.16; P < 0.001), intensive care unit LOS (DM, −0.18; 95% CI, −0.31 to −0.04; P = 0.01), procedure time (DM, −25.02; 95% CI, −32.70 to −17.35; P < 0.001); and fluoroscopy time (DM, −1.63; 95% CI, −3.02 to −0.24; P = 0.02). No differences were observed between LA and GA for stroke, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury, paravalvular leak, vascular complications, major bleeding, procedural success, conduction abnormalities, and annular rupture. Conclusion Our meta‐analysis suggests that use of LA for TAVR is associated with a lower 30‐day mortality, shorter procedure time, fluoroscopy time, ICU LOS, hospital length of stay, and reduced need for inotropic support.