Propensity Matched Analysis Comparing Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Abstract

Conscious sedation (CS) has been increasingly utilized in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We aim to compare safety, efficacy, efficiency, and direct cost outcomes of patients who underwent TAVI with general anesthesia (GA) to those with CS. Records for all adult patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI at our institution between February 2012 and September 2018 were retrospectively screened. Patients were grouped by anesthesia treatment (GA or CS) and propensity matched. Safety (in-hospital and 30-day mortality, in-hospital and 30-day stroke, cardiac arrest, need for permanent pacemaker, and composite bleed/vascular adverse events), efficacy (follow-up echocardiographic findings), efficiency (procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital length-of-stay, and discharge to home), and direct cost outcomes were compared. A total of 589 patients met our inclusion criteria. Propensity matching yielded 154 GA patients and 154 CS patients. There were no differences in the safety outcomes of in-hospital or 30-day mortality, in-hospital or 30-day stroke, cardiac arrest, and need for permanent pacemaker between GA and CS groups. There was a significant reduction in composite bleeding/vascular events in the CS group (8.4% vs 19.5%, p < 0.01). There were no differences in the follow-up echocardiograms with respect to aortic valve area, left ventricular ejection fraction, and incidence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. The CS group had shorter procedural fluoroscopy times and radiation dose, shorter length-of-stay and ICU stay, with similar procedural duration. CS patients were more likely to be discharged to home (59.7% vs 74.7%, p < 0.01). Total direct costs for CS were decreased in almost every departmental category, with a mean 10.4% reduction in overall direct costs (p < 0.001). In conclusion, TAVI with CS is associated with less bleeding and vascular events, lower procedural radiation exposure, reduced length of hospitalization and ICU stay, and lower direct costs in comparison with TAVI with GA. These outcomes occur without sacrificing procedural efficacy or safety.