Anesthetic management for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A national anesthesia clinical outcomes registry analysis.

Background: General anesthesia has traditionally been used in transcatheter aortic valve replacement; however, there has been increasing interest and momentum in alternative anesthetic techniques. Aims: To perform a descriptive study of anesthetic management options in transcatheter aortic valve replacements in the United States, comparing trends in use of monitored anesthesia care versus general anesthesia. Settings and Design: Data evaluated from the American Society of Anesthesiologists' (ASA) Anesthesia Quality Institute's National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry. Materials and Methods: Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors associated with use of monitored anesthesia care compared to general anesthesia. Results: The use of monitored anesthesia care has increased from 1.8% of cases in 2013 to 25.2% in 2017 (p = 0.0001). Patients were more likely ages 80+ (66% vs. 61%; p = 0.0001), male (54% vs. 52%; p = 0.0001), ASA physical status > III (86% vs. 80%; p = 0.0001), cared for in the Northeast (38% vs. 22%; p = 0.0001), and residents in zip codes with higher median income ($63,382 vs. $55,311; p = 0.0001). Multivariable analysis revealed each one-year increase in age, every 50 procedures performed annually at a practice, and being male were associated with 3% (p = 0.0001), 33% (p = 0.012), and 16% (p = 0.026) increased odds of monitored anesthesia care, respectively. Centers in the Northeast were more likely to use monitored anesthesia care (all p < 0.005). Patients who underwent approaches other than percutaneous femoral arterial were less likely to receive monitored anesthesia care (adjusted odds ratios all < 0.51; all p = 0.0001). Conclusion: Anesthetic type for transcatheter aortic valve replacements in the United States varies with age, sex, geography, volume of cases performed at a center, and procedural approach.

Staffing in a Level 1 Trauma Center: Quantifying Capacity for Preparedness.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine who is involved in the care of a trauma patient. METHODS: We recorded hospital personnel involved in 24 adult Priority 1 trauma patient admissions for 12 h or until patient demise. Hospital personnel were delineated by professional background and role. RESULTS: We cataloged 19 males and 5 females with a median age of 50-y-old (interquartile range [IQR], 35.5-67.5). The average number of hospital personnel involved was 79.71 (standard deviation, 17.62; standard error 3.6). A median of 51.2% (IQR, 43.4%-59.8%) of personnel were first involved within hour 1. More personnel were involved in direct versus indirect care (median 54.5 [IQR, 47.5-67.0] vs 25.0 [IQR, 22.0-30.5]; P < 0.0001). Median number of health-care professionals and auxiliary staff were 74.5 (IQR, 63.5-90.5) and 6.0 (IQR, 5.0-7.0), respectively. More personnel were first involved in hospital locations external to the emergency department (median, 53.0 [IQR, 41.5-63.0] vs 27.5 [IQR, 24.0-30.0]; P < 0.0001). No differences existed in total personnel by Injury Severity Score (P = 0.1266), day (P = 0.7270), or time of admission (P = 0.2098). CONCLUSIONS: A large number of hospital personnel with varying job responsibilities respond to severe trauma. These data may guide hospital staffing and disaster preparedness policies.