English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Aims  Patients with postoperative delirium (POD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are ventilated and hospitalized longer and suffer increased in-hospital mortality. This study hypothesized that a minimalistic approach with conscious sedation during transfemoral aortic valve replacement (TF-AVR) protects against delirium, time of mechanical ventilation, and increased length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU) compared to intubation anaesthesia.    Methods and results  308 patients which underwent TF-AVR in our centre between 01/2013 and 08/2017 were retrospectively evaluated regarding postoperative delirium, time of mechanical ventilation, and days in ICU. TF-AVR was performed with intubation anaesthesia in 245 patients and with conscious sedation in 63. The operative risk estimated by the logEUROScore was similar in both groups (intubation: 13.28 +/-9.06%, conscious sedation: 12.24 +/-6.77%, p = 0.395). In the conscious sedation group procedure duration was shorter (0.61 +/-0.91h vs. 1.75 +/-0.96h, p<0.001). The risk for intraprocedural complications was not influenced by the anaesthesia method (OR conscious sedation instead of intubation 1.66, p = 0.117), but days on ICU (-2.21 days, p<0.0001) and minutes of mechanical ventilation (-531.2 min, p < 0.0001) were reduced. Furthermore, the risk of POD was decreased when TF-AVR was performed under conscious sedation (6.35% vs. 18.18%, OR 0.29, p = 0.021).    Conclusions  Time of mechanical ventilation, risk of POD, and days on ICU were substantially reduced in patients who underwent TF-AVR under conscious sedation. Our data suggest that TF-AVR with conscious sedation is safe with a beneficial postoperative course in clinical practice, and should be considered the favoured approach.

plos one

A logistic regression analysis comparing minimalistic approach and intubation anaesthesia in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement