Outcomes of Operator-Directed Sedation and Anesthesiologist Care in the Pediatric/Congenital Catheterization Laboratory: A Study Utilizing Data From the IMPACT Registry.

TitleOutcomes of Operator-Directed Sedation and Anesthesiologist Care in the Pediatric/Congenital Catheterization Laboratory: A Study Utilizing Data From the IMPACT Registry.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2021
AuthorsO'Byrne ML, Kennedy KF, Steven JM, Hill KD, Chamberlain RC, Millenson ME, Smith CL, Dori Y, Gillespie MJ, Rome JJ, Glatz AC
JournalJACC Cardiovasc Interv
Volume14
Issue4
Pagination401-413
Date Published2021 Feb 22
ISSN1876-7605
Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess contemporary use of operator directed sedation (ODS) and anesthesiologist care (AC) in the pediatric/congenital cardiac catheterization laboratory (PCCL), specifically evaluating whether the use of operator-directed sedation was associated with increased risk of major adverse events.

BACKGROUND: The safety of ODS relative to AC during PCCL procedures has been questioned.

METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was performed studying procedures habitually performed with ODS or AC at IMPACT (Improving Adult and Congenital Treatment) registry hospitals using ODS for ≥5% of cases. The risks for major adverse events (MAE) for ODS and AC cases were compared, adjusted for case mix. Current recommendations were evaluated by comparing the ratio of observed to expected MAE for cases in which ODS was inappropriate (inconsistent with those guidelines) with those for similar risk AC cases, as well as those in which ODS or AC was appropriate.

RESULTS: Of the hospitals submitting data to IMPACT, 28 of 101 met inclusion criteria. Of the 7,042 cases performed using ODS at these centers, 88% would be inappropriate. Use of ODS was associated with lower likelihood of MAE both in observed results (p < 0.0001) and after adjusting for case-mix (odds ratio: 0.81; p = 0.006). Use of AC was also associated with longer adjusted fluoroscopy and procedure times (p < 0.0001 for both). The observed/expected ratio for ODS cases with high pre-procedural risk (inappropriate for ODS) was significantly lower than that for AC cases with comparable pre-procedural risk. Across a range of pre-procedural risks, there was no stratum in which risk for MAE was lower for AC than ODS.

CONCLUSIONS: Across a range of hospitals, ODS was used safely and with improved efficiency. Clinical judgment better identified cases in which ODS could be used than pre-procedural risk score. This should inform future guidelines for the use of ODS and AC in the catheterization laboratory.

DOI10.1016/j.jcin.2020.10.054
Alternate JournalJACC Cardiovasc Interv
PubMed ID33602437