Comparison of Monitored Anesthesia Care and General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Objective Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is a safe, minimally invasive treatment for severe aortic stenosis in patients with moderate-to-high surgical risk. Monitored anesthesia is administered by an anesthesiologist. This study compares transcatheter aortic valve outcomes under monitored anesthesia vs general anesthesia. Methods Data were prospectively collected for 286 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement at a single academic hospital from March 2012 to August 2016. The patients were grouped by type of anesthesia: monitored vs general. A propensity score match was performed to compare intraoperative and post-operative outcomes between groups. Results General anesthesia was used in 102 patients and moderate sedation in 184. Propensity score matching produced 80 pairs. Compared to procedures under general anesthesia, patients receiving monitored anesthesia had shorter procedure (1.6 [1.4, 2.0] vs 2.0 [1.6, 2.5] hours; P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy times (17 [14.5, 22.5] vs 25 [17.9, 30.3] minutes; P < 0.001) and shorter hospital length-of-stay (3 [2.0, 4.0] vs 5 [3.0, 7.0] days; P < 0.001) but no difference in intensive care unit length-of-stay. Blood transfusion was more common in patients undergoing general anesthesia, but there was no difference in stroke, renal failure, postoperative atrial fibrillation, or need for permanent pacemaker. More patients were discharged to home after monitored anesthesia (90% vs 64%; P < 0.001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (0% vs 3%; P = 0.15). Conclusions Transcatheter aortic valve replacement under monitored anesthesia provides the safety of anesthesia-led sedation without intubation and general anesthetic. We found no compromise in patient safety or clinical outcomes.