Choice of anesthesia technique is associated with earlier hospital discharge and reduced costs after transcatheter transfemoral aortic valve implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a viable alternative to palliation in patients with severe aortic stenosis. We compared general anesthesia to conscious sedation for TAVI procedures with respect to post operative morbidity, hospital length of stay, and financial burden. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI procedures from 2012 to 2017. Patients were matched based on age and sex and classed into either general anesthesia or conscious sedation groups respectively. Conscious sedation was provided with a dexmedetomidine infusion, and patients in general anesthesia group received a standard induction, tracheal intubation, and maintenance with sevoflurane. The hospital case costs were compared between the two groups before and after adjustment for inflation. Results: We matched 124 pairs for a total of 248 patients. Both groups were similar with respect to demographic data, past medical history, medications, and intraoperative characteristics. There was no difference in postoperative morbidity and mortality between the two groups. The median hospital length of stay was 5 [interquartile range (IQR): 3, 10] and 7 (IQR: 4, 12) days, P=0.01, and after adjustment for inflation, the total hospital case costs were $48,984 (IQR: $44,802, $61,438) Canadian (CAD) vs. $55,333 (IQR: $46,832, $68,702) CAD, P=0.01, in the conscious sedation and general anesthesia groups, respectively. Conclusions: Advancements in TAVI technologies, conscious sedation and a collaborative, multidisciplinary team approach reduces overall length of hospital stay and procedure costs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".