Locoregional Anesthesia Offers Improved Outcomes after Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

General anesthesia (GA) and locoregional anesthesia (LA) are two anesthetic options for endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (REVAR). Studies on elective endovascular repair of nonruptured aneurysms have indicated that in select patients, LA may provide improved outcomes compared with GA. We aimed to examine the 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing REVAR using GA and LA in a contemporary nationwide cohort of patients presenting with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Patients who underwent REVAR using GA and LA from January 2011 through December 2015, inclusively, were studied in the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP)-targeted EVAR database. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare preoperative demographics, operation-specific variables, and 30-day postoperative outcomes between the two groups.

Six-hundred ninety patients were identified to have undergone REVAR from 2011 to 2015, of which 12.5% (86) were performed under LA. For the entire cohort, the mean age was 74.3 years, and 80% were male. Mean aneurysm size was 7.6 cm and did not differ between the two anesthetic groups. Major comorbidities were similar between both groups, except a slightly higher rate of congestive heart failure in the LA group (7.0% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.02). Proximal or distal aneurysm extent also did not differ between the two groups. There was a significantly higher rate of bilateral percutaneous access in the LA group (59.3% vs. 25.2%, P < 0.01). REVAR under LA had shorter mean operative time (132 vs. 166 min, P < 0.01) and lower rate of concomitant lower extremity revascularization (2.3% vs. 10.6%, P < 0.01). There were no differences in need for perioperative transfusion or any other adjunctive procedures. Ultimately, 30-day mortality was significantly lower in the LA group (16.3% vs. 25.2%, P < 0.01). This difference was more pronounced in the subgroup of patients with hemodynamic instability (15.4% vs. 39.4%, P < 0.01). The LA group also demonstrated significantly shorter intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (3.0 vs. 5.0 days, P = 0.01) and low rates of postoperative pneumonia (3.5% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.03). After adjustment for demographics, comorbid conditions, hypotensive status, and aneurysm characteristics, there was a two-fold higher mortality in patients undergoing REVAR using GA versus LA, with a four-fold increase in the hemodynamically unstable cohort.

The ACS NSQIP-targeted EVAR database shows that LA is used in only 12.5% of patients undergoing REVAR in this nationwide cohort. This rate does not change when examining the subset of patients who are hemodynamically unstable. Other benefits include shorter ICU lengths of stay and lower rates of pneumonia. These data suggest that LA should be considered in patients undergoing REVAR, regardless of hemodynamic instability.