Postoperative Complications in Monitored Anesthesia Care
This literature review examines eight peer-reviewed studies on monitored anesthesia care (MAC) to build the foundation for a PICOT-based capstone change proposal addressing postoperative complications. The review compares research questions, sample populations, and study limitations across investigations covering sedation dosing, airway management, conversion to general anesthesia, and patient outcomes for procedures ranging from gastrointestinal endoscopies to transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Common themes include the challenge of retrospective study designs, variability in MAC-to-general anesthesia conversion criteria, and limited long-term follow-up. The paper concludes with recommendations for future high-quality randomized trials with standardized protocols and larger multi-center samples.
- Introduction: MAC defined and review purpose established
- Comparison of Research Questions: Eight studies' research questions compared across procedures
- Comparison of Sample Populations: Study settings, sizes, and patient demographics contrasted
- Comparison of Study Limitations: Retrospective bias, small samples, and subjectivity discussed
- Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research: Calls for RCTs, longer follow-up, and standardized protocols
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper maintains a clear comparative structure throughout, organizing findings across four parallel dimensions — research questions, sample populations, limitations, and future directions — which keeps the analysis focused and easy to follow.
- It draws on a varied but thematically cohesive set of eight studies, demonstrating breadth across procedures (endoscopy, valve replacement, atrial septal defect closure) while keeping the unifying focus on MAC safety and outcomes.
- The limitations section is notably self-aware, acknowledging retrospective design bias, lack of standardized conversion criteria, and single-center generalizability — showing genuine critical appraisal rather than uncritical summary.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper exemplifies comparative literature synthesis: rather than summarizing each study in isolation, it groups studies thematically across shared analytical categories. This approach allows the writer to identify cross-study patterns — such as the consistent reliance on retrospective data and the absence of long-term follow-up — that would be invisible in a study-by-study annotation format.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a clinical context introduction that defines MAC and states the review's PICOT-framing purpose. Three body sections follow in parallel structure, each comparing all eight studies along one dimension: research questions, sample populations, and limitations. A brief conclusion synthesizes the common thread and calls for methodologically stronger future research. The reference list follows APA format throughout.
Introduction
Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) is commonly used for various surgical and diagnostic procedures, including endoscopies, minor orthopedic surgeries, and certain types of interventional radiology procedures. The goal of this intervention is to provide a comfortable and safe experience for the patient while allowing the healthcare team to perform the necessary, sometimes invasive procedures. The level of sedation can vary, ranging from minimal (light sedation) to moderate (conscious sedation) depending on the requirements of the procedure and the patient's individual needs. The purpose of this literature review is to develop the findings needed to articulate a comprehensive PICOT question that can serve as the foundation for a capstone project change proposal, addressing the clinical problem associated with postoperative complications in patients who have received MAC.
Comparison of Research Questions
The research questions in the first two studies reviewed examined optimal sedation dosing during MAC for varicose vein stripping surgery to avoid respiratory depression, and compared surgical outcomes for sialendoscopy with MAC versus general anesthesia. The third and fourth questions investigated whether MAC has comparable rates of postoperative complications and mortality to general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve replacement surgery, and whether adding a supraglottic airway to MAC can achieve similar procedural efficiency and adverse event rates as standard MAC without an airway device. Additional research questions introduced other aspects of MAC.
The fifth study's research question focused on using a respiratory volume monitor to improve safety for patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopies with MAC. By contrast, the sixth study's research question compared deep sedation MAC to general anesthesia for atrial septal defect closure surgery in terms of outcomes and complications. The seventh study's research question investigated whether administering dexmedetomidine during MAC or general anesthesia affects post-anesthesia care unit length of stay for ambulatory surgery patients. Finally, the eighth study focuses on when providers should convert MAC to general anesthesia when sedation causes airway instability.
While the specifics of these studies varied, all of the research questions ultimately aim to clarify the optimal approach for airway and breathing management, sedation dosing, monitoring, and conversion to general anesthesia in order to maximize the safety and efficacy of MAC across different procedures. The research questions also sought to determine how MAC compares to general anesthesia for many surgeries regarding complications, mortality, recovery times, procedural efficiency, and other important outcomes.
Comparison of Sample Populations
The sample populations were drawn from academic hospitals, medical centers, and surgical databases across the United States. The first study utilized hospital data on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry. The second study was conducted at an academic hospital among 51 patients undergoing varicose vein stripping surgery with MAC. The third study included 172 patients who had sialendoscopic surgery with either MAC or general anesthesia.
The fourth study, performed at a tertiary academic medical center, matched 148 patients who received transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement surgery with a supraglottic airway to 148 patients who had the surgery with standard MAC. The fifth study enrolled 65 patients undergoing upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopies using total intravenous anesthesia for MAC. The sixth study retrospectively analyzed records from the Asan Medical Center in Korea for 311 patients who had atrial septal defect closure surgery with either deep sedation MAC or general anesthesia. The seventh study leveraged data on over 130,000 adult ambulatory surgery patients at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center to investigate associations between dexmedetomidine and recovery times. Finally, the eighth study examined over 219,000 cases at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City in which providers had to rescue patients' airways by converting from initial MAC to general anesthesia due to sedation-related instability.
All of these studies focused exclusively on adult patient populations undergoing surgical or invasive medical procedures ranging from minimally invasive endoscopies to more complex surgeries such as transcatheter valve replacement and atrial septal defect closure. Many studies emphasize ambulatory surgery populations or procedures commonly performed with MAC, highlighting the relevance of MAC for shorter outpatient surgeries. While sample sizes varied considerably, many studies incorporated hundreds or even over a hundred thousand patients to generate sufficient statistical power for their analyses of relatively uncommon outcomes like postoperative complications. Together, the population samples reflect substantial data-driven efforts to clarify best clinical practices for optimizing patient safety and outcomes with MAC.
Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research
The findings that emerged from the comparison of the eight studies selected for these analyses identified a number of commonalities and differences in study design, sampling, and analytical strategies, all with the common focus of optimizing patient safety and clinical outcomes using MAC. Despite the value of this and other previous research in this area, additional studies using high-quality randomized trials, expanded follow-up periods, larger multi-center samples, blinded outcome adjudication, and standardized management protocols could provide valuable evidence to guide MAC utilization and improve patient outcomes.
References
Abbett, S. K., Urman, R. D., Resor, C. D., & Brovman, E. Y. (2021, February). The effect of anesthesia type on outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 35(2), 429–435.
Cho, S., Han, J. I., Baik, H. J., Kim, D. Y., & Chun, E. H. (2021, April). Monitored anesthesia care for great saphenous vein stripping surgery with target-controlled infusion of propofol and remifentanil: A prospective study. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 69(2), 155–160.
Haobo, M., Wachtendorf, L. J., Santer, P., Schaefer, M. S., Friedrich, S., Nabel, S., Ramachandran, S. K., Shen, C., Sundar, E., & Eikermann, M. (2021, September). The effect of intraoperative dexmedetomidine administration on length of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit in ambulatory surgery: A hospital registry study. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, 72, 110284.
Kim, S., Chang, B. A., Rahman, A., et al. (2021, June). Analysis of urgent/emergent conversions from monitored anesthesia care to general anesthesia with airway instrumentation. BMC Anesthesiology, 21(1), 183.
Mastrolonardo, E., Stewart, M., Alapati, R., Thaler, A., Zhan, T., Curry, J. M., Luginbuhl, A. J., & Cognetti, D. M. (2021, January–February). Comparison of general anesthesia and monitored anesthesia care for sialendoscopy procedures. American Journal of Otolaryngology, 42(1), 102809.
Musuku, S. R., Capua, C. A. D., Doshi, I., Byun, Y., & Shapeton, A. D. (2021). Outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed with general anesthesia using a supraglottic airway versus monitored anesthesia care. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, 35(6), 1760–1768.
Nichols, R. H., Blinn, J. A., Ho, T. M., McQuitty, R. A., & Kinsky, M. P. (2018, April). Respiratory volume monitoring reduces hypoventilation and apnea in subjects undergoing procedural sedation. Respiratory Care, 63(4), 448–454.
Park, Y.-S., Choi, D.-K., Kang, J., Joung, K.-W., & Choi, I.-C. (2019, April). Comparison between monitored anesthesia care and general anesthesia in patients undergoing device closure of atrial septal defect. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 11(4), 1421–1427.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.