ArticlePediatric cardiology2026
General Endotracheal Anesthesia vs Total Intravenous Anesthesia for Children Undergoing Low-Risk Cardiac Catheterization.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How to evaluate, triage, and sedate a patient in the congenital cardiac catheterization laboratory.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Historically, children undergoing cardiac catheterization have been managed with general endotracheal anesthesia (GETA). However, recent practice has favored general anesthesia with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). This study compares procedural outcomes in the pediatric cardiac catheterization laboratory (PCCL) for children undergoing low-risk cardiac catheterization with GETA vs. TIVA. We reviewed all patients aged 1-12 years, who underwent outpatient diagnostic or simple interventional catheterization from January 2016 to September 2023. Patients were divided into cohorts by type of anesthesia (GETA vs. TIVA). The primary outcome measure was total patient time in the PCCL ("door-to-door" time). Secondary outcomes were procedure duration ("sheath time"), length of hospital stay, and the major adverse event (MAE) rate. A total of 401 patients were included. Of these patients, 226 underwent GETA and 175 underwent TIVA. There were 148 interventional procedures and 72 patients had single-ventricle physiology. There was no significant difference between the two cohorts in terms of demographic factors such as age, weight, procedure indication, and physiological complexity as well as outcomes such as sheath time, hospital stay, and MAE. However, the average door-to-door time of the TIVA cohort was 25 min shorter than the GETA cohort (p < 0.001). In this single center, retrospective study of anesthesia management for children undergoing low-risk cardiac catheterization, TIVA is associated with significantly shorter door-to-door time in the PCCL without an increase in procedure duration, hospital stay, or rate of complications. These findings have potential clinical significance supporting increased use of TIVA during pediatric cardiac catheterization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39806015What 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.