Observational studyMedicine2018
General anesthesia versus local anesthesia for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.
Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Renal outcomes of suprarenalCardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare general and local anesthesia techniques in patients treated with elective endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) for infrarenal aortic aneurysms.In this single-center, observational cohort study, in all, 259 consecutive patients who underwent elective EVAR was included; 144 patients (55.6%, 126 men, mean age 72.8 years) operated on under general anesthesia (GA group) and 115 (44.4%, 100 men, mean age 72.3 years) operated on under local anesthesia (LA group). A retrospective analysis regarding technical feasibility, endoleaks, length of hospital stay, and 30-day clinical outcomes was performed.There was no anesthetic conversion (from LA to GA) during EVAR, and no significant difference was noted in the incidence of endoleaks and its types in relation to anesthetic techniques on final completion angiograms (14.1% vs 18.4%; P = .347) and follow-up computed tomography angiogram at 30 days after EVAR (23.6% vs 19.1%; P = .384). Significant differences were not observed with regard to a prolonged length of hospital stay in relation to anesthetic techniques (8.6 ± 16.3 vs 7.2 ± 3.3; P = .348), and the main outcomes showed no significant differences in morbidity (20.1% vs 16.5%; P = .457), mortality (0.0% vs 0.0%), and the rates of secondary therapeutic procedures (9.7% vs 4.3%; P = .099) between the 2 groups during the 30-day follow-up.We have not shown a definite difference in 30-day outcomes between GA and LA for EVAR. The anesthetist and surgeon, in consultation with the patient, should decide which anesthetic technique to use on an individual basis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.