Chitra Sivasankar1, Michael Stiefel2, Todd A Miano3, Guy Kositratna1, Sukanya Yandrawatthana1, Robert Hurst4, W Andrew Kofke5. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, WestChester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York, USA. 3. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Departments of Radiology, Neurosurgery, and Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. Departments of Anesthesiology and Critical Care and Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many authors have reported that general anesthesia (GA), as a generic and uncharacterized therapy, is contraindicated for patients undergoing endovascular management of acute ischemic stroke (EMAIS). The recent American Heart Association update cautiously suggests that it might be reasonable to favor conscious sedation over GA during EMAIS. We are concerned that such recommendations will result in patients undergoing endovascular treatment without consideration of the effects of specific anesthetic agents and anesthetic dose, and without appropriate critical consideration of the individual patient's issues. We hypothesized that significant variation in anesthetic practice comprises GA, and that outcome differences among types of GA would arise. METHODS: With IRB approval, we examined the records of patients who underwent anterior circulation EMAIS at the University of Pennsylvania from 2010 to 2015. Patients were managed by different anesthesiologists with no specific protocol. We analyzed American Society of Anesthesiologists status, NIH Stroke Scale, type of stroke, procedure, different types of anesthetic, blood pressure control, and outcome metrics. Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores were determined from medical records. RESULTS: GA was used in 91% of patients. Several types of GA were employed: intravenous, volatile, and intravenous/volatile combined. mRS scores ≤2 at discharge were observed in 42.8% of patients receiving volatile anesthesia and were better in patients receiving only volatile agents after induction of anesthesia (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the notion that anesthetic techniques and associated physiology used in EMAIS are not homogeneous, making any statements about the effects of generic GA in stroke ambiguous. Moreover, our data suggest that the type of GA may affect the outcome after EMAIS. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND: Many authors have reported that general anesthesia (GA), as a generic and uncharacterized therapy, is contraindicated for patients undergoing endovascular management of acute ischemic stroke (EMAIS). The recent American Heart Association update cautiously suggests that it might be reasonable to favor conscious sedation over GA during EMAIS. We are concerned that such recommendations will result in patients undergoing endovascular treatment without consideration of the effects of specific anesthetic agents and anesthetic dose, and without appropriate critical consideration of the individual patient's issues. We hypothesized that significant variation in anesthetic practice comprises GA, and that outcome differences among types of GA would arise. METHODS: With IRB approval, we examined the records of patients who underwent anterior circulation EMAIS at the University of Pennsylvania from 2010 to 2015. Patients were managed by different anesthesiologists with no specific protocol. We analyzed American Society of Anesthesiologists status, NIH Stroke Scale, type of stroke, procedure, different types of anesthetic, blood pressure control, and outcome metrics. Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores were determined from medical records. RESULTS:GA was used in 91% of patients. Several types of GA were employed: intravenous, volatile, and intravenous/volatile combined. mRS scores ≤2 at discharge were observed in 42.8% of patients receiving volatile anesthesia and were better in patients receiving only volatile agents after induction of anesthesia (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the notion that anesthetic techniques and associated physiology used in EMAIS are not homogeneous, making any statements about the effects of generic GA in stroke ambiguous. Moreover, our data suggest that the type of GA may affect the outcome after EMAIS. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Lucie A van den Berg; Diederik L H Koelman; Olvert A Berkhemer; Anouk D Rozeman; Puck S S Fransen; Debbie Beumer; Diederik W Dippel; Aad van der Lugt; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Wim H van Zwam; Patrick A Brouwer; Sjoerd Jenniskens; Jelis Boiten; Geert A Lycklama À Nijeholt; Jan Albert Vos; Wouter J Schonewille; Charles B L M Majoie; Yvo B W E M Roos Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: S Mundiyanapurath; A Stehr; M Wolf; M Kieser; M Möhlenbruch; M Bendszus; W Hacke; J Bösel Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2015-03-16 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: William J Powers; Colin P Derdeyn; José Biller; Christopher S Coffey; Brian L Hoh; Edward C Jauch; Karen C Johnston; S Claiborne Johnston; Alexander A Khalessi; Chelsea S Kidwell; James F Meschia; Bruce Ovbiagele; Dileep R Yavagal Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 10.170
Authors: Konark Malhotra; Nitin Goyal; Aristeidis H Katsanos; Angeliki Filippatou; Eva A Mistry; Pooja Khatri; Mohammad Anadani; Alejandro M Spiotta; Else Charlotte Sandset; Amrou Sarraj; Georgios Magoufis; Christos Krogias; Lars Tönges; Apostolos Safouris; Lucas Elijovich; Mayank Goyal; Adam Arthur; Andrei V Alexandrov; Georgios Tsivgoulis Journal: Hypertension Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Joseph T Marion; Seyed Mohammad Seyedsaadat; Jeffery J Pasternak; Alejandro A Rabinstein; David F Kallmes; Waleed Brinjikji Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Silvia Schönenberger; Pia Löwhagen Hendén; Claus Z Simonsen; Lorenz Uhlmann; Christina Klose; Johannes A R Pfaff; Albert J Yoo; Leif H Sørensen; Peter A Ringleb; Wolfgang Wick; Meinhard Kieser; Markus A Möhlenbruch; Mads Rasmussen; Alexandros Rentzos; Julian Bösel Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dana Raub; Katharina Platzbecker; Stephanie D Grabitz; Xinling Xu; Karuna Wongtangman; Stephanie B Pham; Kadhiresan R Murugappan; Khalid A Hanafy; Ala Nozari; Timothy T Houle; Samir M Kendale; Matthias Eikermann Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 5.501