Indexed on: 13 Feb '07Published on: 13 Feb '07Published in: Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists
To compare anesthesia techniques in high-risk versus low-risk patients treated with endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) with respect to outcomes.From July 1997 to August 2004, 5557 patients were enrolled in the EUROSTAR registry by 164 centers. Low-risk and high-risk patients were each divided into 3 groups according to anesthesia used during operation [general (GA), regional (RA), and local (LA)], resulting in 6 groups. Differences in preoperative and operative details among the 3 types of anesthesia were analyzed using a chi-square test for discrete variables and the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables for each risk profile. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed on early complications.Intensive care unit (ICU) admission was less frequent for high-LA (1.2% of patients) than high-RA (7.8%, p=0.0071) and high-GA (16.2%, p<0.0001), but high-RA still had a distinct advantage (p<0.0001) over high-GA. Systemic complications were lower both for high-LA (9.0%, p=0.0128) and for high-RA (10.7%, p<0.0001) than for high-GA (18.3%). Early death (< or =30 days) was reduced in high-RA (3.0%) versus high-GA (4.3%, p=0.0286).On the basis of the EUROSTAR data, high-risk patients in particular attain important advantages from minimally invasive anesthetic techniques. Mortality, morbidity, hospital stay, and ICU admission are significantly lower for locoregional versus general anesthesia in the EUROSTAR registry. These results should encourage greater use of regional anesthesia in high-risk patients. Local anesthesia seems to be of similar benefit for EVAR in high-risk patients.