Local versus General Anaesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomised and Propensity-Score Matched Studies.
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation
general anaesthesia
local anaesthesia
transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Journal
Current problems in cardiology
ISSN: 1535-6280
Titre abrégé: Curr Probl Cardiol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7701802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Dec 2023
19 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
18
12
2023
accepted:
18
12
2023
medline:
22
12
2023
pubmed:
22
12
2023
entrez:
21
12
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a common practice for severe aortic stenosis, but the choice between general (GA) and local anesthesia (LA) remains uncertain. We conducted a comprehensive literature review until April 2023, comparing the safety and efficacy of LA versus GA in TAVI procedures. Our findings indicate significant advantages of LA, including lower 30-day mortality rates (RR: 0.69; 95% CI [0.58, 0.82]; p < 0.001), shorter in-hospital stays (mean difference: -0.91 days; 95% CI [-1.63, -0.20]; p = 0.01), reduced bleeding/transfusion incidents (RR: 0.64; 95% CI [0.48, 0.85]; p < 0.01), and fewer respiratory complications (RR: 0.56; 95% CI [0.42, 0.76], p<0.01). Other operative outcomes were comparable. Our findings reinforce prior evidence, presenting a compelling case for LA's safety and efficacy. While patient preferences and clinical nuances must be considered, our study propels the discourse towards a more informed anaesthesia approach for TAVI procedures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38128636
pii: S0146-2806(23)00777-6
doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2023.102360
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
102360Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.