We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Observational Study
Patient Selection and Outcomes of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Performed with Monitored Anesthesia Care Versus General Anesthesia.
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia 2017 December
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) versus general anesthesia (GA) for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) and to describe a selection process for the administration of MAC.
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent TF-TAVR under MAC or GA.
SETTING: Department of Cardiac Anesthesia, Albany Medical Center, a tertiary university hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients selected for TF-TAVR.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into those who underwent MAC and those who underwent GA.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study comprised 104 consecutive patients (55% male, mean age 83 years) who underwent TF-TAVR under MAC (n = 60) or GA (n = 37) from 2014 to 2015. Seven patients were converted from MAC to GA and were omitted from analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between 30-day mortality and complications between the 2 groups. The MAC group had a significantly shorter median intensive care unit length of stay (48 h v 74 h, p = 0.0002). The MAC group also demonstrated reduced procedural time (45.5 min v 62 min, p = 0.003); operating room time (111 min v 153 min, p = <0.001); and fluoroscopy time (650 s v 690 s, p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: Patient selection for TF-TAVR with MAC can be formalized and implemented successfully. MAC allows for the minimizing of patient exposure to unnecessary interventions and improving resource utilization in suitable TAVR patients. Selection requires a multidisciplinary clinical decision-making process. MAC demonstrates good outcomes compared with GA, yet it is important to have a cardiac anesthesiologist present in the event of emergency conversion to GA.
DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent TF-TAVR under MAC or GA.
SETTING: Department of Cardiac Anesthesia, Albany Medical Center, a tertiary university hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients selected for TF-TAVR.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into those who underwent MAC and those who underwent GA.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study comprised 104 consecutive patients (55% male, mean age 83 years) who underwent TF-TAVR under MAC (n = 60) or GA (n = 37) from 2014 to 2015. Seven patients were converted from MAC to GA and were omitted from analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between 30-day mortality and complications between the 2 groups. The MAC group had a significantly shorter median intensive care unit length of stay (48 h v 74 h, p = 0.0002). The MAC group also demonstrated reduced procedural time (45.5 min v 62 min, p = 0.003); operating room time (111 min v 153 min, p = <0.001); and fluoroscopy time (650 s v 690 s, p = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: Patient selection for TF-TAVR with MAC can be formalized and implemented successfully. MAC allows for the minimizing of patient exposure to unnecessary interventions and improving resource utilization in suitable TAVR patients. Selection requires a multidisciplinary clinical decision-making process. MAC demonstrates good outcomes compared with GA, yet it is important to have a cardiac anesthesiologist present in the event of emergency conversion to GA.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app