Key result
Monitored anesthesia care shows comparable complication rates to general anesthesia for percutaneous ASD closures.
Why the study?
Percutaneous ASD device closure is usually performed under general anesthesia, but recent studies suggest monitored anesthesia care with deep sedation may also be safe.
Does monitored anesthesia care with deep sedation improve safety or procedural times compared to general anesthesia in patients undergoing device closure of atrial septal defect?
Cohort (n=311)
Does monitored anesthesia care with deep sedation improve safety or procedural times compared to general anesthesia in patients undergoing device closure of atrial septal defect?
Monitored anesthesia care with deep sedation is an effective and safe alternative to general anesthesia for patients undergoing percutaneous ASD device closures.
MAC with deep sedation appears comparable to GA for ASD closure; observational data leaves open randomized confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous atrial septal defect (ASD) device closure is usually performed under general anesthesia (GA) because it can ensure protection of the airway from the effects of insertion of the transesophageal echocardiogram probe insertion. However, recent studies have suggested that this procedure can be performed safely under deep sedation also. Thus, we compared the efficacy of using monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with deep sedation versus GA to perform this procedure and the post-procedural outcomes and incidence of complications associated with these two methods of anesthesia. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed cases involving 311 patients who underwent ASD device closures from January 2011 to December 2015. The demographics, laboratory values, echocardiographic findings, and intraoperative data of these patients were assessed. GA was induced with a continuous infusion of propofol and remifentanil using a target control infusion pump. MAC with deep sedation was performed by using a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil. The primary outcome of the study was the overall complication rate that included the incidence of aspiration pneumonia, sore throat, dysphagia, vocal cord palsy, neurologic complication, device-related complications, and other minor complications during the procedure; and the secondary outcomes were the turnover time, procedure time, and duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: 51.0±15.4 min, P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: MAC under deep sedation is an effective and safe anesthetic option comparable to GA for performing percutaneous ASD device closures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Atrial septal defect (n=311). Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with deep sedation vs. General anesthesia (GA) was evaluated on Overall complication rate (including aspiration pneumonia, sore throat, dysphagia, vocal cord palsy, neurologic complication, device-related complications, and other minor complications). Monitored anesthesia care with deep sedation was comparable to general anesthesia for percutaneous ASD device closures, with a significant difference in a time outcome (51.0±15.4 min, P=0.004).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: