Local anaesthesia for endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

• Published in: British journal of surgery 2019-01, Vol.106 (1), p.74-81
• Main Authors: Mouton, R., Rogers, C. A., Harris, R. A., Hinchliffe, R. J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Anesthesia, Local - methods; Anesthesia, Local - mortality; Aneurysms; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - mortality; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery; Aortic aneurysms; Aortic Rupture - mortality; Aortic Rupture - surgery; Endovascular Procedures - methods; Endovascular Procedures - mortality; Female; Health risk assessment; Humans; Length of Stay - statistics & numerical data; Local anesthesia; Male; Mortality; Original; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Postoperative Complications - mortality; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0007-1323; 1365-2168
• DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10973

Background Case series and a post hoc subgroup analysis of a large randomized trial have suggested a potential benefit in treating ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) using endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with local anaesthesia (LA) rather than general anaesthesia (GA). The uptake and outcomes of LA in clinical practice remain unknown. Methods The UK National Vascular Registry was interrogated for patients presenting with rAAA managed with EVAR under different modes of anaesthesia between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included: the number of centres performing EVAR under LA; the proportion of patients receiving this technique; duration of hospital stay; and postoperative complications. Results Some 3101 patients with rAAA were treated in 72 hospitals during the study: 2306 underwent on open procedure and 795 had EVAR (LA, 319; GA, 435; regional anaesthesia, 41). Overall, 56 of 72 hospitals (78 per cent) offered LA for EVAR of rAAA. Baseline characteristics and morphology were similar across the three EVAR subgroups. Patients who had surgery under LA had a lower in‐hospital mortality rate than patients who received GA (59 of 319 (18·5 per cent) versus 122 of 435 (28·0 per cent)), and this was unchanged after adjustment for factors known to influence survival (adjusted hazard ratio 0·62, 95 per cent c.i. 0·45 to 0·85; P = 0·003). Median hospital stay and postoperative morbidity from other complications were similar. Conclusion The use of LA for EVAR of rAAA has been adopted widely in the UK. Mortality rates appear lower than in patients undergoing EVAR with GA. Improves 30‐day survival