W Brinjikji1, M H Murad2, A A Rabinstein3, H J Cloft4, G Lanzino4, D F Kallmes4. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (W.B., H.J.C., G.L., D.F.K.) brinjikji.waleed@mayo.edu. 2. Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery and the Division of Preventive Medicine (M.H.M.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Neurology (A.A.R.). 4. From the Departments of Radiology (W.B., H.J.C., G.L., D.F.K.) Neurosurgery (H.J.C., G.L., D.F.K.).
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.
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.
Authors: Kurt D Petersen; Uffe Landsfeldt; Georg Emil Cold; Carsten B Petersen; Søren Mau; John Hauerberg; Peter Holst; Karsten Skovgaard Olsen Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: J J Deeks; J Dinnes; R D'Amico; A J Sowden; C Sakarovitch; F Song; M Petticrew; D G Altman Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2003 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Alex Abou-Chebl; Ridwan Lin; Muhammad Shazam Hussain; Tudor G Jovin; Elad I Levy; David S Liebeskind; Albert J Yoo; Daniel P Hsu; Marilyn M Rymer; Ashis H Tayal; Osama O Zaidat; Sabareesh K Natarajan; Raul G Nogueira; Ashish Nanda; Melissa Tian; Qing Hao; Junaid S Kalia; Thanh N Nguyen; Michael Chen; Rishi Gupta Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Melinda J Davis; Bijoy K Menon; Leyla B Baghirzada; Cynthia R Campos-Herrera; Mayank Goyal; Michael D Hill; David P Archer Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Alex Abou-Chebl; Ossama O Zaidat; Alicia C Castonguay; Rishi Gupta; Chung-Huan J Sun; Coleman O Martin; William E Holloway; Nils Mueller-Kronast; Joey D English; Italo Linfante; Guilherme Dabus; Timothy W Malisch; Franklin A Marden; Hormozd Bozorgchami; Andrew Xavier; Ansaar T Rai; Micahel T Froehler; Aamir Badruddin; Thanh N Nguyen; Muhammad Taqi; Michael G Abraham; Vallabh Janardhan; Hashem Shaltoni; Roberta Novakovic; Albert J Yoo; Peng R Chen; Gavin W Britz; Ritesh Kaushal; Ashish Nanda; Mohammad A Issa; Raul G Nogueira Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 7.914