ABSTRACT
The newer generation of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are commonly used as destination therapy; these devices have demonstrated improved outcomes and increased survival. Given the longer lifespan, it is not surprising that patients with LVADS are increasingly presenting with noncardiac, chronic diseases and interventions for their treatment. This includes ophthalmic procedures in patients with LVAD. There is a paucity of literature about the experiences and outcomes in this cohort of patients presenting for ophthalmologic surgery. Here we present a case series consisting of 7 patients with LVAD that underwent 10 ophthalmic surgeries. No adverse events including intraoperative hemodynamic instability or respiratory compromise occurred. All patients had an on-time discharge with no 30-day recidivism. Most patients underwent a phacoemulsification with intraocular lens implantation and received a topical with intracameral anesthetic. We attribute these successful outcomes to a standardized clinical workflow consisting of careful preoperative screening, communication and presence of VAD coordinator, continuation of antithrombotics, monitoring based on presence of pulsatile flow, and a plan for rapid transfer if needed.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: This study will determine the safety of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) compared with endotracheal tube (ETT) in patients undergoing general anesthesia for dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) surgery. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent DCR at UAB Callahan Eye Hospital using either LMA or ETT were compared. RESULTS: Over a period of 52 months, 429 patients underwent external DCR surgery. An ETT was used in 37 patients and LMA in 392 patients. Baseline patient characteristics and anesthetic management were similar. No documented cases of blood or gastric aspiration occurred in the total cohort. Our study confirmed the findings of others that there is less cardiovascular lability on LMA placement than with ETT intubation. A 30% increase in heart rate from baseline after intubation (ETT 10.8%, LMA 1.8%; p = 0.010) and after incision (ETT 8.1%, LMA 1.8%; p = 0.047) occurred more frequently in the ETT group. Airway management with an LMA was also less difficult compared with an ETT (ETT 5.7%, LMA 0.5%; p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: The use of an LMA for airway control is safe and effective in patients undergoing general anesthesia for DCR surgery. No events of aspiration occurred with LMA use. Heart rate increase was significantly less in the LMA group. In our opinion, use of an LMA for airway control during DCR surgery is superior to use of an ETT. Airway protection, improved hemodynamics, and less difficulty in placement of the laryngeal airway device are all validated by this study.
