Dataset Information

Association of General Anesthesia vs Procedural Sedation With Functional Outcome Among Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke Undergoing Thrombectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

General anesthesia during thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke has been associated with poor neurological outcome in nonrandomized studies. Three single-center randomized trials reported no significantly different or improved outcomes for patients who received general anesthesia compared with procedural sedation.

Objective

To detect differences in functional outcome at 3 months between patients who received general anesthesia vs procedural sedation during thrombectomy for anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke.

Data source

MEDLINE search for English-language articles published from January 1, 1980, to July 31, 2019.

Study selection

Randomized clinical trials of adults with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of at least 10 and anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke assigned to receive general anesthesia or procedural sedation during thrombectomy.

Data extraction and synthesis

Individual patient data were obtained from 3 single-center, randomized, parallel-group, open-label treatment trials with blinded end point evaluation that met inclusion criteria and were analyzed using fixed-effects meta-analysis.

Main outcomes and measures

Degree of disability, measured via the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score (range 0-6; lower scores indicate less disability), analyzed with the common odds ratio (cOR) to detect the ordinal shift in the distribution of disability over the range of mRS scores.

Results

A total of 368 patients (mean [SD] age, 71.5 [12.9] years; 163 [44.3%] women; median [interquartile range] National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, 17 [14-21]) were included in the analysis, including 183 (49.7%) who received general anesthesia and 185 (50.3%) who received procedural sedation. The mean 3-month mRS score was 2.8 (95% CI, 2.5-3.1) in the general anesthesia group vs 3.2 (95% CI, 3.0-3.5) in the procedural sedation group (difference, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.03-0.83]; cOR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.09-2.29]; P = .02). Among prespecified adverse events, only hypotension (decline in systolic blood pressure of more than 20% from baseline) (80.8% vs 53.1%; OR, 4.26 [95% CI, 2.55-7.09]; P < .001) and blood pressure variability (systolic blood pressure >180 mm Hg or <120 mm Hg) (79.7 vs 62.3%; OR, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.49-3.93]; P < .001) were significantly more common in the general anesthesia group.

Conclusions and relevance

Among patients with acute ischemic stroke involving the anterior circulation undergoing thrombectomy, the use of protocol-based general anesthesia, compared with procedural sedation, was significantly associated with less disability at 3 months. These findings should be interpreted tentatively, given that the individual trials examined were single-center trials and disability was the primary outcome in only 1 trial.

SUBMITTER: Schonenberger S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6777267 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceGeneral anesthesia and procedural sedation are common practice for mechanical thrombectomy in acute ischemic stroke. However, risks and benefits of each strategy are unclear.ObjectiveTo determine whether general anesthesia or procedural sedation for anterior circulation large-vessel occlusion acute ischemic stroke thrombectomy are associated with a difference in periprocedural complications and 3-month functional outcome.Design, setting, and participantsThis open-label, blinded end point randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2017 and February 2020, with final follow-up in May 2020, at 10 centers in France. Adults with occlusion of the intracranial internal carotid artery and/or the proximal middle cerebral artery treated with thrombectomy were enrolled.InterventionsPatients were assigned to receive general anesthesia with tracheal intubation (n = 135) or procedural sedation (n = 138).Main outcomes and measuresThe prespecified primary composite outcome was functional independence (a score of 0 to 2 on the modified Rankin Scale, which ranges from 0 [no neurologic disability] to 6 [death]) at 90 days and absence of major periprocedural complications (procedure-related serious adverse events, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic acute pulmonary edema, or malignant stroke) at 7 days.ResultsAmong 273 patients evaluable for the primary outcome in the modified intention-to-treat population, 142 (52.0%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 71.6 (13.8) years. The primary outcome occurred in 38 of 135 patients (28.2%) assigned to general anesthesia and in 50 of 138 patients (36.2%) assigned to procedural sedation (absolute difference, 8.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.3 to 19.1; P = .15). At 90 days, the rate of patients achieving functional independence was 33.3% (45 of 135) with general anesthesia and 39.1% (54 of 138) with procedural sedation (relative risk, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.86-1.61; P = .32). The rate of patients without major periprocedural complications at 7 days was 65.9% (89 of 135) with general anesthesia and 67.4% (93 of 138) with procedural sedation (relative risk, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.21; P = .80).Conclusions and relevanceIn patients treated with mechanical thrombectomy for anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke, general anesthesia and procedural sedation were associated with similar rates of functional independence and major periprocedural complications.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03229148.

Project description:IntroductionIschemic cerebrovascular disease (ICVD) is a serious health problem in which brain tissue suffers from hypoxic damage due to obstruction in cerebral vessels. Mechanical thrombectomy is a commonly used method in the treatment of these patients. However, the effects of local anesthesia (LA) and conscious sedation (CS) during thrombectomy are still unclear. We evaluated whether there was a relationship between the two anesthesia regimens in terms of 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores.MethodsIn this study, a retrospective observational study was conducted to evaluate the effects of LA and CS used during mechanical thrombectomy in four comprehensive stroke centers among ICVD patients. Patients were divided into the LA group and the CS group. Statistical analysis was performed before and after 1:1 matching under propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. The primary outcome measure was an mRS score of 0-2 at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were procedure times, recanalization rates, symptomatic and asymptomatic hemorrhage rates, and procedural complications.ResultsA total of 193 patients (118 patients with LA and 75 patients with CS) were included in the final analysis before PSM. After 1:1 PSM, 98 patients-49 patients from each group-were included in the study. There was no difference in clinical outcomes between the LA- and CS-applied groups (p = 0.543). When blood pressure (BP) values at follow-up after endovascular treatment (EVT) were compared, the lowest systolic and lowest diastolic BP were found to be lower in the CS group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.009). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of recanalization rates, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) rates, 90-day mRS, and procedure-related complication rates (p = 0.617, p = 0.274, p = 0.543, and p = 1.000).ConclusionThis study did not reveal the superiority of CS applied during EVT on 90-day mRS, sICH, recanalization rates, or procedural complications. However, the risk of developing hypotension during the CS application was found to be high.

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:BackgroundThe 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).MethodsA 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.ResultsTwenty-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).ConclusionsAIS 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.