Advanced healthcare utilisation after monitored anaesthesia care versus general anaesthesia: A real-world data analysis
Authors' conclusion
Among procedures where either technique is a viable option, MAC was associated with a lower risk of advanced postoperative healthcare utilisation.
Study context
- Population
- Adults undergoing procedures feasible under monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) and general anaesthesia (GA) at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, US
- Participants
- 63,224 adults
- Exposure
- MAC vs GA
- MACn = 29,611
- GAn = 33,613reference
- Outcome
- Advanced postoperative healthcare utilisation (7-day unplanned ICU admission, 30-day hospital readmission, or non-home discharge)
Methodological detailsmultivariable logistic regression, inverse probability weighted regression adjustment
- Multivariable logistic regression
- Inverse probability weighted regression adjustment
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Each group vs GAAdjusted odds ratio (95% CI)P value
MAC
0.69(0.64–0.74)
P < 0.001- MAC
- ATEadj −2.3% (95% CI −3.0% to −1.7%); P < 0.001
- Overall, patients requiring advanced postoperative healthcare utilisation
- 7,020 (11.1%)
- Proportion of association mediated by lower rates of haemodynamic instability
- 16.6%
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Components of advanced healthcare utilisation (overall cohort)
- Postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) admission
- 1,714 (2.7%)
- Readmitted
- 2,678 (4.2%)
- Non-home discharge
- 3,771 (6.0%)
Original publication
Advanced healthcare utilisation after monitored anaesthesia care versus general anaesthesia: A real-world data analysis. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. Published 6 March 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →