Conscious sedation/monitored anesthesia care versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: To compare the merits and safety between conscious sedation/monitored anesthesia (CS/MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) for patients receiving transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Measurements: Databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to October 2022 to identify studies investigating the impact of CS/MAC on peri-procedural and prognostic outcomes compared to those with GA. The primary outcome was the association of CS/MAC with the risk of 30-day mortality, while secondary outcomes included the risks of adverse peri-procedural (e.g., vasopressor/inotropic support) and post-procedural (e.g., stroke) outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed based on study design [i.e., cohort vs. matched cohort/randomized controlled trials (RCTs)]. Main results: Twenty-four studies (observational studies, n = 22; RCTs, n = 2) involving 141,965 patients were analyzed. Pooled results revealed lower risks of 30-day mortality [odd ratios (OR) = 0.66, p < 0.00001, 139,731 patients, certainty of evidence (COE): low], one-year mortality (OR = 0.72, p = 0.001, 4,827 patients, COE: very low), major bleeding (OR = 0.61, p = 0.01, 6,888 patients, COE: very low), acute kidney injury (OR = 0.71, p = 0.01, 7,155 patients, COE: very low), vasopressor/inotropic support (OR = 0.25, p < 0.00001, 133,438 patients, COE: very low), shorter procedure time (MD = −12.27 minutes, p = 0.0006, 17,694 patients, COE: very low), intensive care unit stay (mean difference(MD) = −7.53 h p = 0.04, 7,589 patients, COE: very low), and hospital stay [MD = −0.84 days, p < 0.00001, 19,019 patients, COE: very low) in patients receiving CS/MAC compared to those undergoing GA without significant differences in procedure success rate, risks of cardiac-vascular complications (e.g., myocardial infarction) and stroke. The pooled conversion rate was 3.1%. Results from matched cohort/RCTs suggested an association of CS/MAC use with a shorter procedural time and hospital stay, and a lower risk of vasopressor/inotropic support. Conclusion: Compared with GA, our results demonstrated that the use of CS/MAC may be feasible and safe in patients receiving TAVR. However, more evidence is needed to support our findings because of our inclusion of mostly retrospective studies. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022367417.