Oluwatomini A Fashina, Elizabeth R Vogel, Elena Ashikhmina Swan, Jason H Anderson, Devon O Aganga, Stephen J Gleich, Paul E Stensrud, Nathaniel W Taggart
{"title":"General Endotracheal Anesthesia vs Total Intravenous Anesthesia for Children Undergoing Low-Risk Cardiac Catheterization.","authors":"Oluwatomini A Fashina, Elizabeth R Vogel, Elena Ashikhmina Swan, Jason H Anderson, Devon O Aganga, Stephen J Gleich, Paul E Stensrud, Nathaniel W Taggart","doi":"10.1007/s00246-025-03768-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Historically, children undergoing cardiac catheterization have been managed with general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA). However, recent practice has favored general anesthesia with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). This study compares procedural outcomes in the pediatric cardiac catheterization laboratory (PCCL) for children undergoing low-risk cardiac catheterization with GETA vs. TIVA. We reviewed all patients aged 1-12 years, who underwent outpatient diagnostic or simple interventional catheterization from January 2016 to September 2023. Patients were divided into cohorts by type of anesthesia (GETA vs. TIVA). The primary outcome measure was total patient time in the PCCL (\"door-to-door\" time). Secondary outcomes were procedure duration (\"sheath time\"), length of hospital stay, and the major adverse event (MAE) rate. A total of 401 patients were included. Of these patients, 226 underwent GETA and 175 underwent TIVA. There were 148 interventional procedures and 72 patients had single-ventricle physiology. There was no significant difference between the two cohorts in terms of demographic factors such as age, weight, procedure indication, and physiological complexity as well as outcomes such as sheath time, hospital stay, and MAE. However, the average door-to-door time of the TIVA cohort was 25 min shorter than the GETA cohort (p < 0.001). In this single center, retrospective study of anesthesia management for children undergoing low-risk cardiac catheterization, TIVA is associated with significantly shorter door-to-door time in the PCCL without an increase in procedure duration, hospital stay, or rate of complications. These findings have potential clinical significance supporting increased use of TIVA during pediatric cardiac catheterization.</p>","PeriodicalId":19814,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-025-03768-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Historically, children undergoing cardiac catheterization have been managed with general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA). However, recent practice has favored general anesthesia with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). This study compares procedural outcomes in the pediatric cardiac catheterization laboratory (PCCL) for children undergoing low-risk cardiac catheterization with GETA vs. TIVA. We reviewed all patients aged 1-12 years, who underwent outpatient diagnostic or simple interventional catheterization from January 2016 to September 2023. Patients were divided into cohorts by type of anesthesia (GETA vs. TIVA). The primary outcome measure was total patient time in the PCCL ("door-to-door" time). Secondary outcomes were procedure duration ("sheath time"), length of hospital stay, and the major adverse event (MAE) rate. A total of 401 patients were included. Of these patients, 226 underwent GETA and 175 underwent TIVA. There were 148 interventional procedures and 72 patients had single-ventricle physiology. There was no significant difference between the two cohorts in terms of demographic factors such as age, weight, procedure indication, and physiological complexity as well as outcomes such as sheath time, hospital stay, and MAE. However, the average door-to-door time of the TIVA cohort was 25 min shorter than the GETA cohort (p < 0.001). In this single center, retrospective study of anesthesia management for children undergoing low-risk cardiac catheterization, TIVA is associated with significantly shorter door-to-door time in the PCCL without an increase in procedure duration, hospital stay, or rate of complications. These findings have potential clinical significance supporting increased use of TIVA during pediatric cardiac catheterization.
从历史上看,接受心导管插入术的儿童一直采用全身气管内麻醉(GETA)。然而,最近的实践倾向于全身麻醉与全静脉麻醉(TIVA)。本研究比较了儿童心导管实验室(PCCL)中使用GETA和TIVA进行低风险心导管插入术的儿童的手术结果。我们回顾了2016年1月至2023年9月期间接受门诊诊断或简单介入导管的所有1-12岁患者。患者按麻醉类型(GETA vs. TIVA)分组。主要结局指标是患者在PCCL中的总时间(“上门”时间)。次要结局是手术时间(“鞘时间”)、住院时间和主要不良事件(MAE)率。共纳入401例患者。在这些患者中,226例接受了GETA, 175例接受了TIVA。有148例介入手术,72例患者有单心室生理。两组患者在年龄、体重、手术指征、生理复杂性等人口统计学因素以及护套时间、住院时间和MAE等结果方面无显著差异。然而,TIVA队列的平均上门时间比GETA队列短25分钟
期刊介绍:
The editor of Pediatric Cardiology welcomes original manuscripts concerning all aspects of heart disease in infants, children, and adolescents, including embryology and anatomy, physiology and pharmacology, biochemistry, pathology, genetics, radiology, clinical aspects, investigative cardiology, electrophysiology and echocardiography, and cardiac surgery. Articles which may include original articles, review articles, letters to the editor etc., must be written in English and must be submitted solely to Pediatric Cardiology.