ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019
Comparison between monitored anesthesia care and general anesthesia in patients undergoing device closure of atrial septal defect.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical evaluation of percutaneous and intra-operative device closure of atrial septal defects under transesophageal echocardiographic guidance: one center experience and mid-term follow-up.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2020Article
- A prospective study of various anesthetic techniques in patients with acyanotic congenital heart diseases undergoing device closure.Annals of cardiac anaesthesiaObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous atrial septal defect (ASD) device closure is usually performed under general anesthesia (GA) because it can ensure protection of the airway from the effects of insertion of the transesophageal echocardiogram probe insertion. However, recent studies have suggested that this procedure can be performed safely under deep sedation also. Thus, we compared the efficacy of using monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with deep sedation versus GA to perform this procedure and the post-procedural outcomes and incidence of complications associated with these two methods of anesthesia.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed cases involving 311 patients who underwent ASD device closures from January 2011 to December 2015. The demographics, laboratory values, echocardiographic findings, and intraoperative data of these patients were assessed. GA was induced with a continuous infusion of propofol and remifentanil using a target control infusion pump. MAC with deep sedation was performed by using a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine and remifentanil. The primary outcome of the study was the overall complication rate that included the incidence of aspiration pneumonia, sore throat, dysphagia, vocal cord palsy, neurologic complication, device-related complications, and other minor complications during the procedure; and the secondary outcomes were the turnover time, procedure time, and duration of hospital stay.
resultsNo significant differences were observed in the complication rate and length of the hospital stay between the MAC group and the GA group. However, the turnover time was significantly longer in the GA group than in the MAC group (56.2±13.3
conclusionsMAC under deep sedation is an effective and safe anesthetic option comparable to GA for performing percutaneous ASD device closures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.