The impact of local vs general anesthesia in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic surgery

Objective: General anesthesia (GA) is associated with inherent risks that can be avoided by the use of lesser invasive anesthetic strategies. We hypothesize that examine and compare the use of local or regional anesthesia (LRA) to that of GA in patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR).

Methods: Patients undergoing TEVAR between 2010 and 2020 in the Vascular Quality Initiative were analyzed. Exclusion criteria included receipt of branched or physician-modified endografts and devices extending distally beyond zone 5. Patients were categorized as receiving LRA or GA. Center volume was reported by quartile according to annualized TEVAR volume, and operative outcomes were compared using appropriate frequentists tests. Univariable and multivariable regression models for anesthesia type and operative outcomes were created to compare unadjusted and adjusted rates of each outcome. Long-term survival was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier survival estimator, whereas adjusted survival analysis was performed using a Cox proportional hazards model.

Results: Of the 17,099 patients who underwent TEVAR, 7299 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 3.8% received LRA. There were no significant differences in the annual proportion of patients who received LRA from 2011 to 2020 (P = .49, χ² test for trend). Only 18.8% of patients who received LRA were treated at the highest quartile volume centers. Patients who received LRA were older and more comorbid compared with those who received GA. There were no differences in in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-1.38; P = .44) or composite of any complication (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.54-1.14; P = .22) between patients who received LRA compared with those who received GA. This also applied to patients presenting with rupture. Receipt of LRA was associated with lower odds of postoperative congestive heart failure (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.01-0.89; P = .01) as well as decreased length of intensive care unit (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40-0.72; P < .01) and hospital length of stay (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.84; P < .01). LRA was not associated with decreased long-term survival compared with GA (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.72-1.25; P = .72).

Conclusions: Despite a greater number of baseline comorbidities, patients undergoing TEVAR with LRA experienced shorter intensive care unit and postoperative lengths of stay, with similar operative outcomes and long-term survival compared with patients who received GA. Similar findings were found among the rupture cohort. LRA should be considered more frequently in select patients undergoing TEVAR.