Comparing outcomes of general anesthesia and monitored anesthesia care during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The Cleveland Clinic Foundation experience

Background Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) has become more widely used during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to avoid the complications of general anesthesia (GA). Methods We included consecutive patients who underwent transfemoral‐TAVR at our institution between January 2012 and April 2017. We compared outcomes with GA versus MAC. Results Of 998 patients, MAC was used in 43.9%. MAC was associated with shorter procedural time (96.9 ± 30.9 vs. 135 ± 64.6 mins; p < .001), fluoroscopy time (20.4 ± 8.9 vs. 29 ± 18.7 mins; p < .001), lower contrast volume (45.5 ± 27 vs. 60.4 ± 43 cc; p < .001), and decreased radiation exposure (12,869 ± 8,099 vs. 20,630 ± 16,276 cGy‐cm 2 ; p < .001). Patients who underwent MAC had a briefer median (IQR) intensive care unit stay [23.3 (21–24) vs. 23.4 (20.8–26) hrs; p < .001], and hospital stay [2 (2, 3) vs. 3 (2–6) days; p < .001], and were more frequently discharged to home (93.4% vs. 82.9%; p < .001). MAC was associated with lower mortality at 30 days (0.5% vs. 2.9%; log‐rank p = .012; adjHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06–0.82; p = .024), but not at 1 year (11.7% vs. 14.6%; log‐rank p = .157) or 3 years (36.8% vs. 38.4%; log‐rank p = 0.433). There were no differences in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at either 30 days (4.6% vs. 9.3%; log‐rank p = .14) or 1 year (21.1% vs. 21.5%; log‐rank p = .653). Similar findings were seen among patients who received newer‐generation SAPIEN‐3 valves. Conclusion Utilizing MAC and omitting intraprocedural transesophageal echocardiography during TAVR seems to be more efficient without compromising safety. Better TAVR outcomes can be achieved with newer generation valves without needing GA.