• P Cao, S Zannetti, G Parlani, F Verzini, S Caporali, A Spaccatini, and F Barzi.
• Unit of Vascular Surgery, Policlinico Monteluce and University of Perugia, Italy.
• J. Vasc. Surg. 1999 Oct 1;30(4):651-7.

PurposeThe low invasiveness of endoluminal abdominal aneurysm repair (EAAR) appears optimal for the use of epidural anesthesia (EA). However, reported series on EAAR show that general anesthesia (GA) is generally preferred. To evaluate the feasibility and problems encountered with EA for EAAR, patients undergoing EAAR with EA and patients undergoing EAAR with GA were examined.MethodsFrom April 1997 through October 1998, EAAR was performed on 119 patients at the Unit of Vascular Surgery at Policlinico Monteluce in Perugia, Italy. Four patients (3%) required conversion to open repair and were excluded from the analysis because they were not suitable candidates for evaluating the feasibility of EA. The study cohort thus comprised 115 patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair with the AneuRx Medtronic stent graft. The incidence of risk factors and anatomical features of the aneurysm were compared in patients selected for EA or GA on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis. Intraoperative and perioperative data were compared and analyzed on the basis of intention-to-treat and on-treatment analysis.ResultsSixty-one patients (54%) underwent the surgical procedure with EA (group A), and 54 (46%) underwent the surgical procedure with GA (group B). Conversion from EA to GA was required in four patients (3 of 61 patients, 5%). There were no statistically significant differences between the two study groups in demographics, clinical characteristics, and American Society of Anesthesiology classification (ASA). There was no perioperative mortality. Major morbidity occurred in 3% of patients (group B). According to intention-to-treat analysis, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in mean operating time, fluoro time, blood loss, amount of contrast media used, mean units of transfused blood, need of intensive care unit, mean postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative endoleak. Conversely, significant differences were found by means of on-treatment analysis in the need of intensive care unit (0 vs 5 patients; P =.02), and length of hospitalization (2.5 vs 3.2 days; P =.04). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that GA and ASA 4 were positive independent predictors of prolonged (more than 2 days) postoperative hospitalization (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 5.8; P =.03, and hazard ratio, 5.1; 95% CI, 1.5 to 17.9; P =.007, respectively).ConclusionEA for EAAR is feasible in a high percentage of patients in whom it is attempted, and it ensures a technical outcome comparable with that of patients undergoing EAAR with GA. Successful completion of EAAR with EA is associated with a short period of hospitalization.

17 keywords...

hide…