Comparison of Local and General Anesthesia on 30-Day Outcomes of Emergency Infrainguinal Endovascular Revascularization for Patients with Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.
{"title":"Comparison of Local and General Anesthesia on 30-Day Outcomes of Emergency Infrainguinal Endovascular Revascularization for Patients with Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia.","authors":"Renxi Li, Anton Sidawy, Bao-Ngoc Nguyen","doi":"10.1177/00031348251331295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundInfrainguinal endovascular interventions can be the first-choice treatment for suitable patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, the choice of anesthesia for infrainguinal endovascular procedures, particularly in emergency situations, remains underexplored. This study aimed to conduct a retrospective analysis based on a multi-institutional nationwide registry to compare the 30-day outcomes of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) who received either local anesthesia (LA) or general anesthesia (GA) during emergency infrainguinal endovascular interventions.MethodsPatients who underwent emergency infrainguinal endovascular revascularization for CLTI (tissue loss or rest pain) were selected from the ACS-NSQIP database from 2012-2022. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare 30-day outcomes between patients under GA and LA, where demographics, baseline characteristics, and symptomatology were adjusted.ResultsAmong 703 patients, 292 (41.54%) were under LA, and 411 (58.46%) were under GA. Patients under LA had lower bleeding requiring transfusion (aOR = 0.428, 95 CI = 0.281-0.653, <i>P</i> < 0.01), lower postoperative wound complications (aOR = 0.289, 95 CI = 0.137-0.612, <i>P</i> < 0.01), and shorter operative time (102.00 ± 72.38 vs 150.70 ± 105.40 minutes, <i>P</i> < 0.01). All other 30-day outcomes, including mortality, organ system complications, and limb-specific outcomes, were comparable between patients under LA and GA.ConclusionLA and GA can be considered equivalent options for eligible CLTI patients undergoing emergency infrainguinal endovascular revascularization, with close monitoring of wound and bleeding complications recommended for GA patients. Further studies are necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes in these patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":7782,"journal":{"name":"American Surgeon","volume":" ","pages":"991-997"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Surgeon","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348251331295","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BackgroundInfrainguinal endovascular interventions can be the first-choice treatment for suitable patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). However, the choice of anesthesia for infrainguinal endovascular procedures, particularly in emergency situations, remains underexplored. This study aimed to conduct a retrospective analysis based on a multi-institutional nationwide registry to compare the 30-day outcomes of patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) who received either local anesthesia (LA) or general anesthesia (GA) during emergency infrainguinal endovascular interventions.MethodsPatients who underwent emergency infrainguinal endovascular revascularization for CLTI (tissue loss or rest pain) were selected from the ACS-NSQIP database from 2012-2022. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare 30-day outcomes between patients under GA and LA, where demographics, baseline characteristics, and symptomatology were adjusted.ResultsAmong 703 patients, 292 (41.54%) were under LA, and 411 (58.46%) were under GA. Patients under LA had lower bleeding requiring transfusion (aOR = 0.428, 95 CI = 0.281-0.653, P < 0.01), lower postoperative wound complications (aOR = 0.289, 95 CI = 0.137-0.612, P < 0.01), and shorter operative time (102.00 ± 72.38 vs 150.70 ± 105.40 minutes, P < 0.01). All other 30-day outcomes, including mortality, organ system complications, and limb-specific outcomes, were comparable between patients under LA and GA.ConclusionLA and GA can be considered equivalent options for eligible CLTI patients undergoing emergency infrainguinal endovascular revascularization, with close monitoring of wound and bleeding complications recommended for GA patients. Further studies are necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes in these patients.
背景:腹股沟血管内介入治疗是外周动脉疾病(PAD)患者的首选治疗方法。然而,腹股沟下血管内手术的麻醉选择,特别是在紧急情况下,仍未得到充分探讨。本研究旨在进行一项基于全国多机构登记的回顾性分析,比较在紧急腹股沟下血管内介入治疗中接受局麻(LA)或全身麻醉(GA)的慢性肢体威胁缺血(CLTI)患者30天的结果。方法选择2012-2022年ACS-NSQIP数据库中因CLTI(组织丢失或静息痛)而行紧急腹股沟下血管内重建术的患者。采用多变量logistic回归比较GA组和LA组患者的30天结局,其中调整了人口统计学、基线特征和症状。结果703例患者中LA组292例(41.54%),GA组411例(58.46%)。术后切口并发症发生率(aOR = 0.289, 95 CI = 0.137 ~ 0.612, P < 0.01)、手术时间(102.00±72.38 vs 150.70±105.40 min, P < 0.01)较低(aOR = 0.281 ~ 0.653, P < 0.01)。所有其他30天结局,包括死亡率、器官系统并发症和肢体特异性结局,在LA组和GA组患者之间具有可比性。结论对于接受紧急腹股沟下血管内重建术的符合条件的CLTI患者,la和GA可被视为相同的选择,GA患者应密切监测伤口和出血并发症。需要进一步的研究来评估这些患者的长期预后。
期刊介绍:
The American Surgeon is a monthly peer-reviewed publication published by the Southeastern Surgical Congress. Its area of concentration is clinical general surgery, as defined by the content areas of the American Board of Surgery: alimentary tract (including bariatric surgery), abdomen and its contents, breast, skin and soft tissue, endocrine system, solid organ transplantation, pediatric surgery, surgical critical care, surgical oncology (including head and neck surgery), trauma and emergency surgery, and vascular surgery.