Dataset Information

Chartis Measurement of Collateral Ventilation: Conscious Sedation versus General Anesthesia - A Retrospective Comparison.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Absence of interlobar collateral ventilation using the Chartis measurement is the key predictor for successful endobronchial valve treatment in severe emphysema. Chartis was originally validated in spontaneous breathing patients under conscious sedation (CS); however, this can be challenging due to cough, mucus secretion, mucosal swelling, and bronchoconstriction. Performing Chartis under general anesthesia (GA) avoids these problems and may result in an easier procedure with a higher success rate. However, using Chartis under GA with positive pressure ventilation has not been validated. OBJECTIVES:In this study we investigated the impact of anesthesia technique, CS versus GA, on the feasibility and outcomes of Chartis measurement. METHODS:We retrospectively analyzed all Chartis measurements performed at our hospital from October 2010 until December 2017. RESULTS:We analyzed 250 emphysema patients (median forced expiratory volume in 1 s 26%, range 12-52% predicted). In 121 patients (48%) the measurement was performed using CS, in 124 (50%) using GA, and in 5 (2%) both anesthesia techniques were used. In total, 746 Chartis readings were analyzed (432 CS, 277 GA, and 37 combination). Testing under CS took significantly longer than GA (median 19 min [range 5-65] vs. 11 min [3-35], p < 0.001) and required more measurements (3 [1-13] vs. 2 [1-6], p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in target lobe volume reduction after treatment (-1,123 mL [-3,604 to 332] in CS vs. -1,251 mL [-3,333 to -1] in GA, p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS:In conclusion, Chartis measurement under CS took significantly longer and required more measurements than under GA, without a difference in treatment outcome. We recommend a prospective trial comparing both techniques within the same patients to validate this approach.

SUBMITTER: Welling JBA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6390462 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Chartis Measurement of Collateral Ventilation: Conscious Sedation versus General Anesthesia - A Retrospective Comparison.

Welling Jorrit B A JBA Hartman Jorine E JE Ten Hacken Nick H T NHT Franz Ina I Charbonnier Jean-Paul JP van Rikxoort Eva M EM Kerstjens Huib A M HAM Klooster Karin K Slebos Dirk-Jan DJ

Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases 20180816 5

<h4>Background</h4>Absence of interlobar collateral ventilation using the Chartis measurement is the key predictor for successful endobronchial valve treatment in severe emphysema. Chartis was originally validated in spontaneous breathing patients under conscious sedation (CS); however, this can be challenging due to cough, mucus secretion, mucosal swelling, and bronchoconstriction. Performing Chartis under general anesthesia (GA) avoids these problems and may result in an easier procedure with ...[more]

PMID: 30114707

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Two common methods of treating pediatric dental patients with severe early childhood caries (S-ECC) are general anesthesia (GA) and conscious sedation (CS). We sought to first evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating S-ECC with GA versus CS and then compare the cost-effectiveness at 2 time points: 2011 and 2015. METHODS:We used a decision tree model to produce 2-y estimates of costs and outcomes from the Medicaid perspective. The model cohort consisted of healthy 3-y-olds with S-ECC in need of a theoretical set of dental treatments to be performed under either a single GA visit or 3 CS visits. Outcomes were measured in caries-free months. Costs were evaluated in 2015 US dollars. Costs, probabilities, and outcomes were estimated from published data, expert opinion, and Medicaid billing at an academic health center. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS:As compared with CS, GA resulted in 4 additional caries-free months per child. The cost of a caries-free month for GA versus CS rose from $596 in 2011 to $881 in 2015. These findings were sensitive to loss to follow-up for subsequent CS visits and total cost of GA. CONCLUSIONS:Comprehensive S-ECC treatment had better outcomes when performed under GA versus CS. However, GA was not cost saving when compared with CS. While the cost of dental treatment increased for both GA and CS from 2011 to 2015, the cost rose faster for GA. These results have important implications due to the increasing cost to Medicaid insurance and the rising number of young children being treated for S-ECC under GA. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT:Medicaid policy makers can use the results of this study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dental treatment for young children with S-ECC at 2 time points: 2011 and 2015. Compared with CS, GA resulted in a longer amount of time during which children were free from dental caries but at a higher cost. The cost difference rose from 2011 to 2015.

Project description:BackgroundThe impact of anesthesia strategy on the outcomes of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients undergoing endovascular treatment is currently controversy. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to compare the differences of clinical and angiographic outcomes between general anesthesia (GA) and conscious sedation (CS).MethodsA literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Knowledge databases through February 2019 was conducted for related records on GA and CS of AIS undergoing endovascular treatment. The results of the studies were pooled and meta-analyzed with fixed- or random-effect model based on heterogeneity test in total and subgroup analyses.ResultsTwenty-three studies including 6703 patients were analyzed in this meta-analysis. We found that patients in the GA group have lower odds of favorable functional outcome (mRS scores ≤2) compared with the CS group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.77), and higher risk of mortality (OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.49-1.90), pneumonia (OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.40-2.26), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR = 1.64, 95% CI: 1.13-2.37). However, no significant differences were seen between the groups in the rate of recanalization (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.89-1.28), vessel dissection or perforation (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.03) and asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.96-1.47). While in the RCT subgroup analysis, we found patients in the GA group does not show lower rate of favorable functional outcome compared with the CS group (OR = 1.84, 95% CI: 1.17-2.89). And there was no significant difference in the rate of mortality between GA and CS groups during RCT subgroup analysis (OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43-1.27).ConclusionsAIS patients performed endovascular treatment under GA compared with CS was associated with worse functional outcome and increased rate of mortality, but differences in worsened outcomes do not exist when one looks into the GA vs. CS RCTs. Moreover, these findings are mainly based on the retrospective studies and additional multi-center randomized controlled trials to definitively address these issues is warranted.

Project description:Background Endovascular therapy is the standard of care for severe acute ischemic stroke caused by large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation, but there is uncertainty regarding the optimal anesthetic approach during this therapy. Meta-analyses of observational studies suggest that general anesthesia increases morbidity and mortality compared with conscious sedation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to examine the effect of anesthetic strategy during endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke. Methods and Results Systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines has been registered with the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews) ( CRD 42018103684). Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched through August 1, 2018. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to pool odds ratio with corresponding 95% CI . The primary outcome was 90-day functional independence (modified Rankin Scale 0-2). In the results, 3 trials with a total of 368 patients were selected. Among patients with ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular therapy, general anesthesia was significantly associated with higher odds of functional independence (odds ratio 1.87, 95% CI 1.15-3.03, I2=17%) and successful recanalization (odds ratio 1.94, 95% CI 1.13-3.3) compared with conscious sedation. However, general anesthesia was associated with a higher risk of 20% mean arterial pressure decrease (odds ratio 10.76, 95% CI 5.25-22.07). There were no significant differences in death, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, anesthesiologic complication, intensive care unit length of stay, pneumonia, and interventional complication. Conclusions Moderate-quality evidence suggests that general anesthesia results in significantly higher rates of functional independence than conscious sedation in patients with ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular therapy. Large randomized clinical trials are required to confirm the benefit.

Dataset Information

Chartis Measurement of Collateral Ventilation: Conscious Sedation versus General Anesthesia - A Retrospective Comparison.

Publications

Chartis Measurement of Collateral Ventilation: Conscious Sedation versus General Anesthesia - A Retrospective Comparison.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets