Association between the choice of anesthesia and in-hospital outcomes after carotid artery stenting

J Vasc Surg. 2019 May;69(5):1461-1470.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.07.064.

Abstract

Objective: Several prior studies have shown lower risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in carotid artery stenting (CAS) compared with carotid endarterectomy. This is likely because the majority of endarterectomies are performed under general anesthesia (GA), whereas CAS is mainly performed under local anesthesia (LA). Performing CAS under GA may reverse its minimally invasive benefits. The aim of this study was to compare the safety profile of CAS-GA with that of CAS-LA.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of the Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2005 to 2017 was performed. Primary outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of in-hospital death and MI, and postoperative neurologic events. Multivariable logistic models, and coarsened exact matching were used to evaluate the association between the primary outcomes and anesthesia technique.

Results: Of 12,919 CAS cases performed, 2024 (15.7%) were under GA. Comparing CAS-GA with CAS-LA in the overall cohort, CAS-GA had significantly higher crude rates of in-hospital mortality (2.1% vs 0.5%), MI (1.3% vs 0.7%), composite MACE (3.1% vs 1.2%), and ipsilateral stroke (2.3% vs 1.6%). Patients undergoing CAS-GA also had higher rates of dysrhythmia (3.0% vs 2.2%), acute congestive heart failure (1.6% vs 0.7%) and perioperative hypertension (13.2% vs 9.4%), and were more likely to have a length of hospital stay of more than 4 days (prolonged length of stay) (17.6% vs 8.5%) compared with those undergoing CAS-LA. On multivariable analysis, CAS-GA had a 2.3 times higher odds of in-hospital mortality compared with CAS-LA (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.26-5.03), a 1.9 times the odds of MACE (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.15-3.03), and a 2.3 times the odds of acute congestive heart failure (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.26-4.15; all P < .05). In addition, these patients had a 43% higher odds of developing perioperative hypertension (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.09-1.87; P = .01) and almost 2 times the odds of a prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.41-2.35; P < .001). The adjusted odds of stroke, dysrhythmia and reperfusion syndrome were not significantly different between the two groups. Additional analysis using coarsened exact matching showed similar results.

Conclusions: In addition to the established increase risk of perioperative stroke/death with CAS compared with carotid endarterectomy, performing it under GA seems to be associated with increased cardiac complications, length of stay, and consequently hospitalization costs. Pending future data from prospective, randomized, controlled trials to validate our findings, there is evidence to suggest that it may be better to perform CAS under LA, especially in medically high-risk patients.

Keywords: Anesthesia; Carotid artery stenting; Carotid stenosis; Complications; General anesthesia; Local anesthesia.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Anesthesia, General* / adverse effects
  • Anesthesia, General* / mortality
  • Anesthesia, Local* / adverse effects
  • Anesthesia, Local* / mortality
  • Carotid Artery Diseases / diagnostic imaging
  • Carotid Artery Diseases / mortality
  • Carotid Artery Diseases / therapy*
  • Cerebrovascular Disorders / etiology
  • Cerebrovascular Disorders / mortality
  • Databases, Factual
  • Endovascular Procedures / adverse effects
  • Endovascular Procedures / instrumentation*
  • Endovascular Procedures / mortality
  • Female
  • Heart Diseases / etiology
  • Heart Diseases / mortality
  • Hospital Mortality
  • Humans
  • Length of Stay
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Risk Assessment
  • Risk Factors
  • Stents*
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome