Patients' satisfaction with local and general anaesthesia for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery-results of the first randomized controlled trial PASSAT

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this single-centre, open, randomized control trial was to compare the patients' satisfaction with local anaesthesia (LA) or general anaesthesia (GA) for video-assisted thoracoscopy.METHODS: Patients with indication for video-assisted thoracoscopy pleural management, mediastinal biopsies or lung wedge resections were randomized for LA or GA. LA was administered along with no or mild sedation and no airway devices maintaining spontaneous breathing, and GA was administered along with double-lumen tube and one-lung ventilation. The primary end point was anaesthesia-related satisfaction according to psychometrically validated questionnaires. Patients not willing to be randomized could attend based on their desired anaesthesia, forming the preference arm.RESULTS: Fifty patients were allocated to LA and 57 patients to GA. Age, smoking habits and lung function were similarly distributed in both groups. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups with regard to patient satisfaction with anaesthesiology care (median 2.75 vs 2.75, P = 0.74), general perioperative care (2.50 vs 2.50, P = 0.57), recovery after surgery (2.00 vs 2.00, P = 0.16, 3-point Likert scales). Surgeons and anaesthesiologists alike were less satisfied with feasibility (P < 0.01 each) with patients in the LA group. Operation time, postoperative pain scales, delirium and complication rate were similar in both groups. LA patients had a significantly shorter stay in hospital (mean 3.9 vs 6.0 days, P < 0.01). Of 18 patients in the preference arm, 17 chose LA, resulting in similar satisfaction.CONCLUSIONS: Patients were equally satisfied with both types of anaesthesia, regardless of whether the type of anaesthesia was randomized or deliberately chosen. LA is as safe as GA but correlated with shorter length of stay. Almost all patients of the preference arm chose LA. Considering the benefits of LA, it should be offered to patients as an equivalent alternative to GA whenever medically appropriate and feasible.