Suscribirse

Anesthesia Techniques for Vitreoretinal Surgery in the United States: A Report from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group Research Consortium - 14/10/24

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajo.2024.06.010 
MUHAMMAD Z. CHAUHAN a , MOHAMED K. SOLIMAN b, c, NATHAN L. PACE d, MICHAEL R. MATHIS e, ROBERT B. SCHONBERGER f, AHMED B. SALLAM a,
On behalf of the

MPOG Investigator Group

a From the Department of Ophthalmology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (M.Z.C., A.B.S.), Little Rock, Arkansas, USA 
b Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University Hospitals Eye Institute, Case Western Reserve University (M.K.S.), Cleveland, Ohio, USA 
c Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University Hospitals (M.K.S.), Assiut, Egypt 
d Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah (N.L.P.), Salt Lake City, Utah, USA 
e Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan (M.R.M.), Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA 
f Department of Anesthesiology, Yale School of Medicine (R.B.S.), New Haven, Connecticut, USA 

Inquiries to Ahmed B. Sallam, Department of Ophthalmology, Jones Eye Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, 4301 W Markham Street, Little Rock, AR, 72205, USADepartment of OphthalmologyJones Eye InstituteUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences4301 W Markham StreetLittle RockAR72205USA

Resumen

Purpose

To explore the patterns of anesthesia use and their determinants during vitreoretinal (VR) surgeries in academic and community hospitals across the US, using data from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG).

Design

A retrospective, multicenter, cohort study.

Methods

We queried the MPOG database of 107,066 patients undergoing VR surgeries. Patients (≥18 years) undergoing VR surgery with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general anesthesia (GA) from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2021 were included. Patient-level, case-based, and institutional-level covariates were collected. We performed multivariable mixed-effects models to determine predictors of anesthesia type use. The primary outcome was the type of anesthesia (MAC or GA) used during VR surgeries. As a secondary outcome, MAC cases were further classified based on the additional use of sedation into MAC with or without sedation.

Results

We found that 67.45% of VR surgery cases received MAC, and 73.63% of institutions administered MAC to more than half of cases. Random effect modeling revealed that 47.76% of the variation in MAC use was attributed to institutions. A trend toward increased use of MAC with increasing age was observed. Patients diagnosed with chronic pulmonary disease, liver disease, or a history of drug abuse were less likely to receive MAC. Conversely, we found that patients with reported alcohol abuse disorder, diabetes with complications, and those with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status of 4 (vs. 1, 2, or 3) were more likely to use MAC. Compared to non-complex VR surgeries, there was a notably decreased likelihood of MAC use in complex PPV (P = .004), PPV + scleral buckle (SB) for retinal detachment (P < .0001), and primary SB surgery (P < .0001).

Conclusions

Approximately 2/3 of VR anesthesia is under MAC, but GA is still preferred for SBs, complex vitrectomy, and younger patients. We show that large interinstitutional variation for using MAC in practice exists.

El texto completo de este artículo está disponible en PDF.

Esquema


 Supplemental Material available at AJO.com.


© 2024  Elsevier Inc. Reservados todos los derechos.
Añadir a mi biblioteca Eliminar de mi biblioteca Imprimir
Exportación

    Exportación citas

  • Fichero

  • Contenido

Vol 267

P. 30-40 - novembre 2024 Regresar al número
Artículo precedente Artículo precedente
  • Can Baseline Parapapillary Atrophy Morphology Predict Future Glaucoma Progression?—An OCT Glaucoma Imaging Study
  • MIN GU HUH, YOON JEONG, YOUNG IN SHIN, KI HO PARK, JIN WOOK JEOUNG
| Artículo siguiente Artículo siguiente
  • Optical Coherence Tomography Advanced Parameters in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis: Ophthalmological and Neurological Assessments
  • MARIA CRISTINA SAVASTANO, VIVIANA NOCITI, FEDERICO GIANNUZZI, VALENTINA CESTRONE, MATTEO MARIO CARLÀ, CLAUDIA FOSSATARO, ILARIA BIAGINI, CLARA RIZZO, RAPHAEL KILIAN, MARCO BISURGI, PAOLO CALABRESI, MASSIMILIANO MIRABELLA, STANISLAO RIZZO

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.
El acceso al texto completo de este artículo requiere una suscripción.

¿Ya suscrito a @@106933@@ revista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Mi cuenta


Declaración CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM se declara a la CNIL, la declaración N º 1286925.

En virtud de la Ley N º 78-17 del 6 de enero de 1978, relativa a las computadoras, archivos y libertades, usted tiene el derecho de oposición (art.26 de la ley), el acceso (art.34 a 38 Ley), y correcta (artículo 36 de la ley) los datos que le conciernen. Por lo tanto, usted puede pedir que se corrija, complementado, clarificado, actualizado o suprimido información sobre usted que son inexactos, incompletos, engañosos, obsoletos o cuya recogida o de conservación o uso está prohibido.
La información personal sobre los visitantes de nuestro sitio, incluyendo su identidad, son confidenciales.
El jefe del sitio en el honor se compromete a respetar la confidencialidad de los requisitos legales aplicables en Francia y no de revelar dicha información a terceros.


Todo el contenido en este sitio: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, sus licenciantes y colaboradores. Se reservan todos los derechos, incluidos los de minería de texto y datos, entrenamiento de IA y tecnologías similares. Para todo el contenido de acceso abierto, se aplican los términos de licencia de Creative Commons.