Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Cost and Outcome Analysis

Transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement utilizing monitored anesthesia care: a case report

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the standard of care for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis. The most common approach to TAVR is transfemoral utilizing monitored anesthesia care or general anesthesia. On occasion, transfemoral access is not possible and alternative access to TAVR is required. Herein, we describe the case of a patient undergoing a transcarotid approach to TAVR with regional anesthesia and monitored anesthesia care utilizing a multidisciplinary heart team.

Conscious sedation/monitored anesthesia care versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis

Background

To compare the merits and safety between conscious sedation/monitored anesthesia (CS/MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) for patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Measurements

Databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to October 2022 to identify studies investigating the impact of CS/MAC on peri-procedural and prognostic outcomes compared to those with GA. The primary outcome was the association of CS/MAC with the risk of 30-day mortality, while secondary outcomes included the risks of adverse peri-procedural (e.g., vasopressor/inotropic support) and post-procedural (e.g., stroke) outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed based on study design [i.e., cohort vs. matched cohort/randomized controlled trials (RCTs)].

Main results

Twenty-four studies (observational studies, n = 22; RCTs, n = 2) involving 141,965 patients were analyzed. Pooled results revealed lower risks of 30-day mortality [odd ratios (OR) = 0.66, p < 0.00001, 139,731 patients, certainty of evidence (COE): low], one-year mortality (OR = 0.72, p = 0.001, 4,827 patients, COE: very low), major bleeding (OR = 0.61, p = 0.01, 6,888 patients, COE: very low), acute kidney injury (OR = 0.71, p = 0.01, 7,155 patients, COE: very low), vasopressor/inotropic support (OR = 0.25, p < 0.00001, 133,438 patients, COE: very low), shorter procedure time (MD = -12.27 minutes, p = 0.0006, 17,694 patients, COE: very low), intensive care unit stay (mean difference(MD) = -7.53 h p = 0.04, 7,589 patients, COE: very low), and hospital stay [MD = -0.84 days, p < 0.00001, 19,019 patients, COE: very low) in patients receiving CS/MAC compared to those undergoing GA without significant differences in procedure success rate, risks of cardiac-vascular complications (e.g., myocardial infarction) and stroke. The pooled conversion rate was 3.1%. Results from matched cohort/RCTs suggested an association of CS/MAC use with a shorter procedural time and hospital stay, and a lower risk of vasopressor/inotropic support.

Conclusion

Compared with GA, our results demonstrated that the use of CS/MAC may be feasible and safe in patients receiving TAVR. However, more evidence is needed to support our findings because of our inclusion of mostly retrospective studies.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022367417.

Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion in general anaesthesia or conscious sedation: data from the prospective global Amplatzer Amulet Occluder Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) using conscious sedation (CS).

BACKGROUND

Several percutaneous structural heart disease interventions are safely and efficiently performed using CS instead of general anaesthesia (GA). This concept has not been evaluated in a large multicenter cohort of patients undergoing LAAO.

METHODS

Patients from the prospective, global Amplatzer Amulet Occluder Observational Study were divided into two groups (GA vs CS). Baseline information, periprocedural and postprocedural efficacy and complications, as well as outcomes through 7 days post implant were compared.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing transesophageal-guided implants were categorised by GA (n=607, 64%) or CS (n=342, 36%) usage. Mean age was 75 years in both groups. LAAO technical success was achieved in 99% of both groups. The procedure duration (GA: 35±22 min vs CS: 27±19 min, p<0.001), total amount of contrast medium (GA: 105±81 mL vs CS: 86±66 mL, p<0.001) and fluoroscopic time (GA: 13±9 min vs CS: 12±13 min, p<0.001) were less in CS cases. Procedure-related or device-related serious adverse events during the first 7 days were numerically higher in the CS group (GA: 4.9% vs CS: 7.6%, p=0.114). Peridevice residual flow was absent or ≤5 mm 1-3 months after the procedure in 99.7% of the GA and in 100% of the CS group (p=1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large global study, LAAO with the Amplatzer Amulet occluder is safe and feasible using CS. Procedure duration and total amount of contrast were less with CS than GA cases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02447081; Results.

Microtransesophageal Echocardiographic Guidance during Percutaneous Interatrial Septal Closure without General Anaesthesia

Objective

To study the safety and efficacy of microtransesophageal echocardiography (micro-TEE) and TEE during percutaneous atrial septal defect (ASD) and patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure.

Background

TEE has proven to be safe during ASD and PFO closure under general anaesthesia. Micro-TEE makes it possible to perform these procedures under local anaesthesia. We are the first to describe the safety and efficacy of micro-TEE for percutaneous closure.

Methods

All consecutive patients who underwent ASD and PFO closure between 2013 and 2018 were included. The periprocedural complications were registered. Residual shunts were diagnosed using transthoracic contrast echocardiography (TTCE). All data were compared between the use of TEE or micro-TEE within the ASD and PFO groups separately.

Results

In total, 82 patients underwent ASD closure, 46 patients (49.1 ± 15.0 years) with TEE and 36 patients (47.8 ± 12.1 years) using micro-TEE guidance. Median device diameter was, respectively, 26 mm (range 10–40 mm) and 27 mm (range 10–35 mm). PFO closure was performed in 120 patients, 55 patients (48.6 ± 9.2 years, median device diameter 25 mm, range 23–35 mm) with TEE and 65 patients (mean age 51.0 ± 11.8 years, median device diameter 27 mm, range 23–35 mm) using micro-TEE. There were no major periprocedural complications, especially no device embolizations within all groups. Six months after closure, there was no significant difference in left-to-right shunt after ASD closure and no significant difference in right-to-left shunt after PFO closure using TEE or micro-TEE.

Conclusion

Micro-TEE guidance without general anaesthesia during percutaneous ASD and PFO closure is as safe as TEE, without a significant difference in the residual shunt rate after closure.

Update on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a minimally invasive approach to treat symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The patient populations that have been shown to benefit from this procedure continue to grow with time. Techniques and technology in TAVR persistently advance with a continued trend toward improved outcomes for patients. In this review, we highlight the advances in vascular access, TAVR valve design, progress in reducing procedural complications, and emerging evidence in the field.