Impact of the type of anesthesia on adverse events during transcarotid artery revascularization
Brajesh K Lal,Minerva Mayorga-Carlin,Shalini Sahoo,Richard Cambria,Joseph D Raffetto,Warren Gasper,Mila Ju,Sumaira Macdonald,John D Sorkin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2024.07.091
2024-08-21
Abstract:Objectives: The use of local or regional anesthesia (LRA) is encouraged during transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) since the procedure is performed through a small incision. LRA permits neurologic evaluation during the procedure and may reduce periprocedural cardiac morbidity compared to general anesthesia (GA). There is limited and conflicting information regarding the preferred anesthesia to use during TCAR. We compared periprocedural clinical and technical complications, and intraprocedural performance metrics of TCAR performed under GA versus LRA. Methods: Patient, lesion, physician, and procedural information was collected in a worldwide quality assurance program of consecutive TCAR procedures. A composite clinical adverse event rate (death, stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction) and a composite technical adverse event rate (aborted procedure, conversion to carotid endarterectomy, bleeding, dissection, cranial-nerve injury, device failure) in the periprocedural period were computed. Four intraprocedural performance measures (flow-reversal time, fluoroscopy time, contrast volume, and skin-to-skin time) were recorded. Deidentified data were analyzed independently at the Center for Vascular Research, Univ of Maryland. Poisson regressions were used to assess the impact of anesthesia type on adverse event rates. Linear regressions were used to compare performance measures. Results: A total of 27,043 TCARs were performed by 1,456 physicians between 2012 and 2021. A majority (83%) of patients received GA, and this proportion increased over time (R2=0.74, p<0.0001). Some physicians (33.4%) used LRA in some of their procedures; only 2.7% used LRA in all of their procedures. Clinical risk-factors were more common in the LRA group (p<0.0001), and anatomic risk-factors in the GA group (p<0.0001); these differences were adjusted for in subsequent analyses. LRA was more likely to be used by vascular surgeons and by physicians with higher prior transfemoral carotid stenting experience (p<0.0001). When comparing GA vs. LRA, clinical adverse events (1.49% [95% CI 1.3,1.8] vs 1.55% [1.2,2.0], p=0.78), technical adverse events (5.6% [5.2,6.2] vs 5.3% [4.5,6.3], p=0.47), and intraprocedural performance measures did not differ by type of anesthesia. Conclusions: Almost 2/3rds of physicians performed TCAR exclusively under GA, and the overall proportion of procedures performed under GA increased over time. A larger fraction of patients with severe medical risk-factors received LRA vs. GA, while a larger fraction of patients with anatomic risk-factors received GA. Periprocedural clinical and technical adverse events did not differ by type of anesthesia. Intraprocedural performance metrics that drive procedural cost were similar between groups; potential differences in procedural cost driven by anesthetic choice require further study.