AT MIDWESTERN VASCULAR 2016
COLUMBUS, OHIO (FRONTLINE MEDICAL NEWS) – General anesthesia during carotid endarterectomy carries almost twice the risk of complications and unplanned intubation as regional anesthesia, but the latter approach, which is not available in all hospitals, has its own issues, an analysis of procedures from a statewide database in Michigan found.
“This study is timely because of CMS [Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services] initiatives tying reimbursement to specific quality measures,” Ahmad S Hussain, MD, of Wayne State University in Detroit said in reporting the study results at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.
“There is associated increased morbidity and resource utilization using general anesthesia vs. regional anesthesia for carotid endarterectomy (CEA),” Dr. Hussain said. “Specifically, general anesthesia is significantly associated with any morbidity, unplanned intubation, extended length of stay, emergency department visits and readmission.”
Regional anesthesia in CEA emerged in the 1990s, Dr. Hussain said, and allows for more reliable neurologic monitoring and more direct evaluation of the need for stenting during CEA than general anesthesia, which requires continuous monitoring of cerebral perfusion with carotid stump pressures, electroencephalogram, and transcranial doppler.
The researchers retrospectively analyzed 4,558 patients who had CEA at hospitals participating in the Michigan Surgical Quality Cooperative from 2012 to 2014 – 4,008 of whom had general anesthesia and 550 regional anesthesia.
“Advocates for carotid endarterectomy with regional anesthesia cite a reduction in hemodynamic instability and the ability for neurological monitoring, but many still prefer general anesthesia because the benefits of regional anesthesia have not been clearly demonstrated, allowing that regional anesthesia may not be available in all centers and allowing that a certain amount of patient movement during the procedure may not be uniformly tolerated,” Dr. Hussain said.
General anesthesia patients in the study had more than twice the rate of any morbidity at 30 days than those who had regional, 8.7% vs. 4.2%, and significantly higher rates of unplanned intervention, 2.1% vs. 0.6%. Dr. Hussain said. However, the study could not determine differences in 30-day mortality or other key outcomes, such as rates of pneumonia, sepsis, deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism, becauseof insufficient sample sizes, Dr. Hussain said
The study found less significant differences between general and regional anesthesia techniques, respectively, in rates of extended length of stay, 12.1% vs. 9.5%; readmissions, 9.2% vs. 6.1%; and reoperation, 4.5% vs. 3%.
The retrospective study used two models to analyze odds ratios: Model 1 adjusted for case mix; and model 2 adjusted for case mix as fixed effects and site as a random effect. While the retrospective nature of the study may be a limitation, the findings support the use of regional anesthesia for CEA when available, Dr. Hussain said.
Dr. Hussain had no relationships to disclose.
