Dataset Information

Outcomes of general anesthesia versus conscious sedation for Stroke undergoing endovascular treatment: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The impact of anesthesia strategy on the outcomes of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients undergoing endovascular treatment is currently controversy. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to compare the differences of clinical and angiographic outcomes between general anesthesia (GA) and conscious sedation (CS).

Methods

A literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Knowledge databases through February 2019 was conducted for related records on GA and CS of AIS undergoing endovascular treatment. The results of the studies were pooled and meta-analyzed with fixed- or random-effect model based on heterogeneity test in total and subgroup analyses.

Results

Twenty-three studies including 6703 patients were analyzed in this meta-analysis. We found that patients in the GA group have lower odds of favorable functional outcome (mRS scores ?2) compared with the CS group (odds ratio [OR]?=?0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.77), and higher risk of mortality (OR?=?1.68, 95% CI: 1.49-1.90), pneumonia (OR?=?1.78, 95% CI: 1.40-2.26), symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR?=?1.64, 95% CI: 1.13-2.37). However, no significant differences were seen between the groups in the rate of recanalization (OR?=?1.07, 95% CI: 0.89-1.28), vessel dissection or perforation (OR?=?1.00, 95% CI: 0.98-1.03) and asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (OR?=?1.19, 95% CI: 0.96-1.47). While in the RCT subgroup analysis, we found patients in the GA group does not show lower rate of favorable functional outcome compared with the CS group (OR?=?1.84, 95% CI: 1.17-2.89). And there was no significant difference in the rate of mortality between GA and CS groups during RCT subgroup analysis (OR?=?0.74, 95% CI: 0.43-1.27).

Conclusions

AIS patients performed endovascular treatment under GA compared with CS was associated with worse functional outcome and increased rate of mortality, but differences in worsened outcomes do not exist when one looks into the GA vs. CS RCTs. Moreover, these findings are mainly based on the retrospective studies and additional multi-center randomized controlled trials to definitively address these issues is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Wan TF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6511209 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcomes of general anesthesia versus conscious sedation for Stroke undergoing endovascular treatment: a meta-analysis.

Wan Teng-Fei TF Xu Rui R Zhao Zi-Ai ZA Lv Yan Y Chen Hui-Sheng HS Liu Liang L

BMC anesthesiology 20190510 1

<h4>Background</h4>The impact of anesthesia strategy on the outcomes of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients undergoing endovascular treatment is currently controversy. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to compare the differences of clinical and angiographic outcomes between general anesthesia (GA) and conscious sedation (CS).<h4>Methods</h4>A literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Knowledge databases through February 2019 was conducted for related records on GA and CS of AIS underg ...[more]

PMID: 31077134

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Endovascular therapy is the standard treatment for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients caused by a large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation, whereas the impacts of general anesthesia (GA) vs. conscious sedation (CS) for such procedures remained as a continued debate. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We restricted our search to RCTs that examined the clinical outcomes of endovascular therapy with GA vs. CS. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess study quality. Random-effects or fixed-effects meta-analyses were used for evaluating all outcomes. Results: A total of three randomized clinical trials met our inclusion criteria, with 368 individuals enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive GA or CS during endovascular therapy. In a meta-analysis of these trials, patients in the GA group were associated with favorable functional outcome (mRS score ≤ 2) compared with the CS group (pooled OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.17-2.79, P = 0.008). Besides, patients in the GA group had higher odds of successful reperfusion (pooled OR = 1.80, 95% CI: 1.05-3.08, P = 0.033), but no significant differences were seen in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (pooled OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.11-2.57, P = 0.308), vessel dissection or perforation (pooled OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 0.30-6.31, P = 0.679), migration of embolus to a new territory (pooled OR = 2.28, 95% CI: 0.89-5.87, P = 0.085), post-operative pneumonia (pooled OR = 1.74, 95% CI: 0.76-4.01, P = 0.149), and all-cause mortality at 90 days (pooled OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.43-1.26, P = 0.263) compared with the CS group. Conclusion: Performing endovascular therapy with GA, compared with CS, improves functional independence after 90 days significantly for patients with AIS caused by a large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation. However, additional larger and multi-center randomized controlled trials to definitively confirm our findings are warranted for the limitation of the small sample size in this study.

Project description:Importance:Endovascular therapy (EVT) is the standard of care for select patients who had a stroke caused by a large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation, but there is uncertainty regarding the optimal anesthetic approach during EVT. Observational studies suggest that general anesthesia (GA) is associated with worse outcomes compared with conscious sedation (CS). Objective:To examine the effect of type of anesthesia during EVT on infarct growth and clinical outcome. Design, Setting, and Participants:The General or Local Anesthesia in Intra Arterial Therapy (GOLIATH) trial was a single-center prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end-point evaluation that enrolled patients from March 12, 2015, to February 2, 2017. Although the trial screened 1501 patients, it included 128 consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusions in the anterior circulation within 6 hours of onset; 1372 patients who did not fulfill inclusion criteria and 1 who did not provide consent were excluded. Primary analysis was unadjusted and according to the intention-to-treat principle. Interventions:Patients were randomized to either the GA group or the CS group (1:1 allocation) before EVT. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary end point was infarct growth between magnetic resonance imaging scans performed before EVT and 48 to 72 hours after EVT. The hypothesis formulated before data collection was that patients who were under CS would have less infarct growth. Results:Of 128 patients included in the trial, 65 were randomized to GA, and 63 were randomized to CS. For the entire cohort, the mean (SD) age was 71.4 (11.4) years, and 62 (48.4%) were women. Baseline demographic and clinical variables were balanced between the GA and CS treatment arms. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 18 (interquartile range [IQR], 14-21). Four patients (6.3%) in the CS group were converted to the GA group. Successful reperfusion was significantly higher in the GA arm than in the CS arm (76.9% vs 60.3%; P?=?.04). The difference in the volume of infarct growth among patients treated under GA or CS did not reach statistical significance (median [IQR] growth, 8.2 [2.2-38.6] mL vs 19.4 [2.4-79.0] mL; P?=?.10). There were better clinical outcomes in the GA group, with an odds ratio for a shift to a lower modified Rankin Scale score of 1.91 (95% CI, 1.03-3.56). Conclusions and Relevance:For patients who underwent thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke caused by large vessel occlusions in the anterior circulation, GA did not result in worse tissue or clinical outcomes compared with CS. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02317237.

Project description:ImportanceNo definitive conclusion can be made on the best choice of anesthesia for people with acute posterior circulation stroke during endovascular treatment. Only a few observational studies have focused on this topic in recent years, and they have differing conclusions.ObjectiveTo examine whether conscious sedation (CS) is a feasible alternative to general anesthesia (GA) during endovascular treatment in patients with acute posterior circulation stroke.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized parallel-group exploratory trial with blinded end point evaluation (Choice of Anesthesia for Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke [CANVAS II]) enrolled adult patients from March 2018 to June 2021 at 2 comprehensive care hospitals in China. Patients with acute posterior circulation stroke were enrolled, randomized, and monitored for 3 months. Of 210 patients admitted with acute ischemic posterior circulation stroke, 93 were recruited and 87 were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis after exclusions, 43 were assigned to GA and 44 to CS. All analyses were unadjusted or adjusted with the ITT principle.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to CS or GA in a 1:1 ratio.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was functional independence at 90 days evaluated with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS).ResultsA total of 87 participants were included in the ITT study (mean [SD] age, 62 [12] years; 16 [18.4%] female and 71 [81.6%] male). Of these, 43 were in the GA group and 44 in the CS group. The overall baseline median (IQR) National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was 15 (12-17). In the CS group, 13 people (29.5%) were ultimately transferred to GA. The CS group had a higher incidence of functional independence; however, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups (48.8% vs 54.5%; risk ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.58-1.38; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.37-2.22). However, GA performed better in successful reperfusion (mTICI 2b-3) under ITT analysis (95.3% vs 77.3%; adjusted OR, 5.86; 95% CI, 1.16-29.53).Conclusion and relevanceThe findings in this study suggest that CS was not better than GA for the primary outcome of functional recovery and was perhaps worse for the secondary outcome of successful reperfusion.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03317535.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Two common methods of treating pediatric dental patients with severe early childhood caries (S-ECC) are general anesthesia (GA) and conscious sedation (CS). We sought to first evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating S-ECC with GA versus CS and then compare the cost-effectiveness at 2 time points: 2011 and 2015. METHODS:We used a decision tree model to produce 2-y estimates of costs and outcomes from the Medicaid perspective. The model cohort consisted of healthy 3-y-olds with S-ECC in need of a theoretical set of dental treatments to be performed under either a single GA visit or 3 CS visits. Outcomes were measured in caries-free months. Costs were evaluated in 2015 US dollars. Costs, probabilities, and outcomes were estimated from published data, expert opinion, and Medicaid billing at an academic health center. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS:As compared with CS, GA resulted in 4 additional caries-free months per child. The cost of a caries-free month for GA versus CS rose from $596 in 2011 to $881 in 2015. These findings were sensitive to loss to follow-up for subsequent CS visits and total cost of GA. CONCLUSIONS:Comprehensive S-ECC treatment had better outcomes when performed under GA versus CS. However, GA was not cost saving when compared with CS. While the cost of dental treatment increased for both GA and CS from 2011 to 2015, the cost rose faster for GA. These results have important implications due to the increasing cost to Medicaid insurance and the rising number of young children being treated for S-ECC under GA. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT:Medicaid policy makers can use the results of this study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dental treatment for young children with S-ECC at 2 time points: 2011 and 2015. Compared with CS, GA resulted in a longer amount of time during which children were free from dental caries but at a higher cost. The cost difference rose from 2011 to 2015.

Dataset Information

Outcomes of general anesthesia versus conscious sedation for Stroke undergoing endovascular treatment: a meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Outcomes of general anesthesia versus conscious sedation for Stroke undergoing endovascular treatment: a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets