Search

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a treatment strategy for patients with severe aortic stenosis. Although general anaesthesia (TAVI-GA) and sedation (TAVI-S) have previously been described for TAVI, the difference in safety and efficacy of both methods has not been studied in a randomized trial.Methods: The INSERT trial was a single centre, controlled parallel-group trial with balanced randomization. Sixty-six patients (68-94 yr) with acquired aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral CoreValve™ were assigned to TAVI-GA or TAVI-S. Comparable operative risk was determined from risk-scores (EUROscore, STS-Score). Monitoring and anaesthetic drugs were standardized. Near-Infrared-Spectroscopy was used to monitor cerebral-oxymetry blinded. Primary outcome was the perioperative cumulative cerebral desaturation. As secondary outcomes, changes in neurocognitive function and respiratory and haemodynamic adverse events were evaluated.Results: Of 66 included patients, 62 (TAVI-GA: n=31, TAVI-S: n=31) were finally analysed. Baseline characteristics were comparable. In 24 patients (39%) cerebral desaturation was observed. Cumulative cerebral desaturation was comparable (TAVI-GA:(median [IQR]) (0[0/1308] s%) vs. TAVI-S:(0[0/276] s%); P=0.505) between the groups. Neurocognitive function did not change within and between groups. Adverse events were more frequently observed in TAVI-S patients (P<0.001). Bradypnoea (n=16, 52%) and the need for airway manoeuvres (n=11, 36%) or bag-mask-ventilation (n=6, 19%) were the most common respiratory adverse events.Conclusions: Cerebral desaturation occurred in both patient groups, but there was no significant difference between the two groups. Based on primary outcome, both methods were shown to be comparable. Neurocognitive outcome was similar. The higher incidence of adverse events in the sedation group suggests a potential advantage of general anaesthesia.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT 01251328. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If the aortic arch requires repair or replacement due to an aneurysm or dissection, conventional cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is not possible during the period in which the aortic arch is excluded from the circulation. This creates a situation in which there is no cerebral circulation. The brain needs adequate protection from this ischaemic insult. Hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA), antegrade/selective cerebral perfusion (ASCP) and retrograde cerebral perfusion (RCP) are reported to exhibit their cerebral protective capabilities during procedures involving the aortic arch. HCA can provide adequate protection in procedures of short duration and avoids the complications associated with cerebral perfusion techniques. The main disadvantage of HCA is that the 'safe' duration of circulatory arrest is not clearly defined. Topical cooling of the head may enhance cerebral hypothermia and provide additional protection. If longer periods of circulatory arrest are anticipated or occur unexpectedly, we suggest that ASCP can offer improved cerebral protection by providing adequate brain perfusion and improved cerebral cooling. By using a coronary sinus perfusion catheter as a carotid artery cannula, it is not necessary to snare or clamp the carotid arteries. This technique minimizes the chance of damaging the carotid arteries. In this report, we describe our set-up and ASCP perfusion protocol for the surgical repair of an aortic arch aneurysm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]