• Marina Balanika, Anna Smyrli, George Samanidis, Kostantinos Spargias, George Stavridis, George Karavolias, Mazen Khoury, Vasilios Voudris, and Stavroula Lacoumenta.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, Athens, Greece. Electronic address: mbalanika@gmail.com.
• J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth.. 2014 Apr 1;28(2):285-9.

ObjectiveTo compare 2 anesthetic techniques, general anesthesia or monitored anesthesia care, performed by the same cardiac anesthesiologists for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the authors' institution.DesignA retrospective study.SettingA single specialized cardiac surgery center.ParticipantsNinety-eight patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and a high logistic EuroSCORE considered not eligible to undergo conventional aortic valve replacement.InterventionGeneral anesthesia or monitored anesthesia care.Measurements And Main ResultsGeneral anesthesia was used in 57 and monitored anesthesia care in 41 patients. The authors compared the following parameters: Duration of procedure, transfusion requirements, cardiac indices, superior vena cava saturation (ScVO2) before and after the aortic valve implantation, hospital length of stay and 30-day mortality. The only significant differences between the groups concerned were the duration of anesthesia (p<0.001) and ScVO2 values. Anesthesia duration was prolonged significantly when general anesthesia was administered, and ScVO2 was significantly higher both before and after the valve implantation in the general anesthesia group. Thirty-day mortality was 5.3% in the general anesthesia group and 4.9% in the monitored anesthesia group.ConclusionsIt would appear that both anesthetic techniques may be used for patients with a high logistic EuroSCORE undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

41 keywords...

hide…