Abstract 4366534: Mortality risk and procedural complications with general anesthesia compared to monitored anesthesia care in percutaneous LAAo: A Propensity-Matched Real-World Analysis

Z Zainab Zaib Khan (University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States) M Mustafa Shehzad (Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, New Jersey, United States) A Ahmed Sajid (PIMS, islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan) F Farva Zaib Khan (Al Nafees Medical College, Islamabad, Pakistan) D Dawood Shehzad (University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls , South Dakota, United States) M Muhammad Zahid Anwar (Rawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan) W Wassey Abdul (Rawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan) A Aoun Zaib Khan (MetroHealth/Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio, United States) D Dawlat Khan (University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls , South Dakota, United States) R Rafia Irfan Waheed (University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls , South Dakota, United States) S Sunia Shabir chaudhary (Rawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan) H Hammad Chaudhry (University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls , South Dakota, United States) M Mamoon Ahmed (University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls , South Dakota, United States) N Naveen Rajpurohit (University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls , South Dakota, United States)

Abstract

Introduction: During percutaneous LAAo, intraprocedural guidance with TEE and fluoroscopy is the standard of care. While general anesthesia with intubation (GA) has historically been the primary choice, the use of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and conscious sedation is rising. The comparative impact of general anesthesia with intubation (GA) on clinical outcomes remains uncertain. We sought to evaluate the risk of adverse clinical outcomes and mortality compared to MAC. Methods: Using the TriNetX US Collaborative Network, we conducted a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study of patients undergoing LAAo from January 2015 to May 2025. GA was defined using ICD-10-PCS codes for endotracheal intubation or mechanical ventilation within ±1 day of LAAo. Outcomes were assessed within 1 year post-index using risk difference (RD), risk ratio (RR), hazard ratio (HR), and log-rank p-values. Propensity score matching (1:1) was applied. Results: Two comparable cohorts (n = 160) were generated after propensity matching. The mean age was 76.6 years, 44% were female, and 74% were White in both cohorts. GA was associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality (RR 3.40 [1.74–6.65]; HR 5.51 [2.44–12.44], p<0.001), respiratory failure (RR 4.46 [2.55–7.81]; HR 5.84 [3.20–10.68], p<0.001), pericardial effusion (RR 2.70 [1.35–5.39]; HR 3.97 [1.80–8.75], p<0.001), and device embolization (6.3% vs 0.0%; RD +6.3% [2.5–10.0], p=0.001). Rates of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, vascular complications, cardiac tamponade, and in-hospital mortality were similar between groups (all p>0.05). A forest plot displaying the adjusted HR’s for all the covariates included in the Cox proportional hazards model evaluating all-cause mortality in LAAO patients is shown in image-1. Conclusion: Based on prior literature MAC utilization of percutaneous LAAo is increasing. While studies show that MAC is feasible during LAAo, general anesthesia use is still predominant. We find that there is a significant increase in all-cause mortality, respiratory failure, pericardial effusion, and device embolization despite GA use. Complete airway control, patient immobilization facilitating accurate transeptal puncture, complex left atrial appendage anatomy, and institutional expertise all factor into the ultimate decision of MAC vs GA. Our findings support the preferential use of MAC in suitable patients and emphasize the need for careful perioperative planning.

Article Details

Journal Circulation
Volume / Issue Vol. 152, Issue Suppl_3
Published November 04, 2025
ISSN 0009-7322
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Circulation

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0009-7322 Health Sciences

Authors (14)

Z

Zainab Zaib Khan

University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States

M

Mustafa Shehzad

Hackensack University Medical Center, Hackensack, New Jersey, United States

A

Ahmed Sajid

PIMS, islamabad, Islamabad, Pakistan

F

Farva Zaib Khan

Al Nafees Medical College, Islamabad, Pakistan

D

Dawood Shehzad

University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls , South Dakota, United States

M

Muhammad Zahid Anwar

Rawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

W

Wassey Abdul

Rawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

A

Aoun Zaib Khan

MetroHealth/Case Western University, Cleveland, Ohio, United States

D

Dawlat Khan

University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls , South Dakota, United States

R

Rafia Irfan Waheed

University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls , South Dakota, United States

S

Sunia Shabir chaudhary

Rawalpindi Medical University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

H

Hammad Chaudhry

University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls , South Dakota, United States

M

Mamoon Ahmed

University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls , South Dakota, United States

N

Naveen Rajpurohit

University of South Dakota, Sioux Falls , South Dakota, United States