Dataset Information

Conscious sedation versus general anesthesia during endovascular acute ischemic stroke treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

A number of studies have suggested that anesthesia type (conscious sedation versus general anesthesia) during intra-arterial treatment for acute ischemic stroke has implications for patient outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the clinical and angiographic outcomes of the 2 anesthesia types.

Materials and methods

In March 2014, we conducted a computerized search of MEDLINE and EMBASE for reports on anesthesia and endovascular treatment of acute ischemic stroke. Using random-effects meta-analysis, we evaluated the following outcomes: recanalization rate, good functional outcome (mRS ≤ 2), asymptomatic and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, death, vascular complications, respiratory complications, procedure time, time to groin, and time from symptom onset to recanalization.

Results

Nine studies enrolling 1956 patients (814 with general anesthesia and 1142 with conscious sedation) were included. Compared with patients treated by using conscious sedation during stroke intervention, patients undergoing general anesthesia had higher odds of death (OR = 2.59; 95% CI, 1.87-3.58) and respiratory complications (OR = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.36-3.23) and lower odds of good functional outcome (OR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.35-0.53) and successful angiographic outcome (OR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.80). No difference in procedure time (P = .28) was seen between the groups. Preintervention NIHSS scores were available from 6 studies; in those, patients receiving general anesthesia had a higher average NIHSS score.

Conclusions

Patients with acute ischemic stroke undergoing intra-arterial therapy may have worse outcomes with general anesthesia compared with conscious sedation. However, the difference in stroke severity at the onset may confound the comparison in the available studies; thus, a randomized trial is necessary to confirm this association.

SUBMITTER: Brinjikji W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8013063 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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: 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: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.