Key result
Conscious sedation yields similar technical success to general anesthesia for TEE-guided LAAO.
Why the study?
Developing minimalistic approaches that eliminate the need for general anesthesia is crucial in LAAO, with conscious sedation emerging as an alternative for TEE-guided procedures.
Does conscious sedation provide equivalent technical and procedural success compared to general anesthesia in patients undergoing TEE-guided LAAO?
Cohort (n=231)
Does conscious sedation provide equivalent technical and procedural success compared to general anesthesia in patients undergoing TEE-guided LAAO?
Conscious sedation is a feasible and safe alternative to general anesthesia for TEE-guided LAAO, offering comparable technical and procedural success without increasing complications.
Comparable technical success observed with either approach; leaves open optimal sedation strategy pending higher-level evidence.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)-guided left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) procedures under general anesthesia with conscious sedation. BACKGROUND: In the expanding field of LAAO procedures, developing minimalistic approaches that eliminate the need for general anesthesia is crucial. Conscious sedation is spreading as an alternative for performing TEE-monitored LAAO procedures. METHODS: For this study, patients enrolled in the registry who underwent LAAO under conscious sedation were compared with those who received general anesthesia. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics between groups. Outcomes assessed included technical success, procedural success, and clinical follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were included. After adjustment, 99 patched pairs treated with LAAO using general anesthesia and conscious sedation were compared. The technical success did not differ between general anesthesia and conscious sedation patients [98 versus 99%; P = 0.612; hazard ratio 1.68; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.22-18.64]. The procedural success, defined as technical success in the absence of in-hospital device or procedure-related clinical events, was comparable between the two groups (95 versus 97%; P = 0721; hazard ratio 1.70; 95% CI: 0.32-11.24). No statistically significant differences were found for all procedural complications assessed, including death, neurological events, pericardial effusion, device embolization, systemic arteria embolization, and major bleeding. Also, clinical adverse events during follow-up were comparable between general anesthesia and conscious sedation procedures. CONCLUSION: This study shows that LAAO can be performed with equivalent outcomes under either general anesthesia or conscious sedation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Laterra et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Left atrial appendage occlusion (n=231). Conscious sedation vs. General anesthesia was evaluated on Technical success (HR 1.68, 95% CI 0.22-18.64, p=0.612). Conscious sedation for TEE-guided left atrial appendage occlusion resulted in similar technical success compared to general anesthesia (99% vs 98%; HR 1.68; 95% CI 0.22-18.64; P=0.612).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: