Guangjun Hu1,2,3, Zhen Shi4,5, Bixi Li6, Weidong Shao2, Bo Xu1,2. 1. The First Clinical College of Southern Medical University Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, General Hospital of The Southern Theater Command of The Chinese PLA Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Wuhan Third Hospital/Tongren Hospital of Wuhan University Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. 4. Department of Pain Treatment, Hubei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. 5. Hubei Provincial Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine Wuhan, Hubei Province, China. 6. Department of Anesthesiology, General Hospital of The Central Theater Command of The Chinese PLA Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective is to compare the effect of general anesthesia (GA) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) on clinical outcomes in patients with endovascular therapy for vertebrobasilar occlusion stroke. METHODS:139 patients undergoing endovascular therapy for vertebrobasilar stroke, were recruited. The patients were randomized into GA group and MAC group (about 1:1 ratio). GA group received general anesthesia and MAC group received monitored anesthesia care during endovascular therapy. The primary outcome measure was the shift in the degree of disability among the 2 groups as measured by the modified Rankin scale score (mRS) at 90 days (80-100 days). Secondary end points included infarct volume and related complications. RESULTS: The patients were assigned randomly (about 1:1 allocation) to GA group (n=72) and MAC group (n=67). The primary outcome of functional independence measured by 90-day mRS score was not significantly different between the 2 groups (median (IQR), 2 (1-3) vs. 3 (1-4); P=0.316). Final infarct volume was smaller in the GA group than in the MAC group (median (IQR), 27.60 (13.75-83.52) vs. 33.60 (26.85-92.95); P=0.045). There were no differences with statistical significance in rates of successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (mTICI) 2b-3) between 2 groups (73.61% vs. 76.12%; P=0.734). Early neurological outcomes measured by the 24-hour National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (NIHSS) showed that 11 (interquartile range (IQR), 3-22) in GA group and 11 (interquartile range (IQR), 7-25) in MAC group, but were not statistically significant. There was no statistical difference in postoperative complications between the two groups. CONCLUSION: For patients who underwent endovascular therapy for vertebrobasilar occlusion strok caused by occlusions in the posterior circulation, MAC appears to be as effective as GA. However, MAC is associated with bigger final infarct volume. Future studies are warranted to confirm our findings. AJTR
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective is to compare the effect of general anesthesia (GA) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC) on clinical outcomes in patients with endovascular therapy for vertebrobasilar occlusion stroke. METHODS: 139 patients undergoing endovascular therapy for vertebrobasilar stroke, were recruited. The patients were randomized into GA group and MAC group (about 1:1 ratio). GA group received general anesthesia and MAC group received monitored anesthesia care during endovascular therapy. The primary outcome measure was the shift in the degree of disability among the 2 groups as measured by the modified Rankin scale score (mRS) at 90 days (80-100 days). Secondary end points included infarct volume and related complications. RESULTS: The patients were assigned randomly (about 1:1 allocation) to GA group (n=72) and MAC group (n=67). The primary outcome of functional independence measured by 90-day mRS score was not significantly different between the 2 groups (median (IQR), 2 (1-3) vs. 3 (1-4); P=0.316). Final infarct volume was smaller in the GA group than in the MAC group (median (IQR), 27.60 (13.75-83.52) vs. 33.60 (26.85-92.95); P=0.045). There were no differences with statistical significance in rates of successful reperfusion (modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Ischemia (mTICI) 2b-3) between 2 groups (73.61% vs. 76.12%; P=0.734). Early neurological outcomes measured by the 24-hour National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (NIHSS) showed that 11 (interquartile range (IQR), 3-22) in GA group and 11 (interquartile range (IQR), 7-25) in MAC group, but were not statistically significant. There was no statistical difference in postoperative complications between the two groups. CONCLUSION: For patients who underwent endovascular therapy for vertebrobasilar occlusion strok caused by occlusions in the posterior circulation, MAC appears to be as effective as GA. However, MAC is associated with bigger final infarct volume. Future studies are warranted to confirm our findings. AJTR
Authors: W Brinjikji; M H Murad; A A Rabinstein; H J Cloft; G Lanzino; D F Kallmes Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jennifer S McDonald; Waleed Brinjikji; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Harry J Cloft; Giuseppe Lanzino; David F Kallmes Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Kilian M Treurniet; Olvert A Berkhemer; Rogier V Immink; Hester F Lingsma; Vivian M C Ward-van der Stam; Markus W Hollmann; Jaap Vuyk; Wim H van Zwam; Aad van der Lugt; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Diederik W J Dippel; Jonathan M Coutinho; Yvo B W E M Roos; Henk A Marquering; Charles B L M Majoie Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Nitin Goyal; Konark Malhotra; Muhammad F Ishfaq; Georgios Tsivgoulis; Christopher Nickele; Daniel Hoit; Adam S Arthur; Andrei V Alexandrov; Lucas Elijovich Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 5.836
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
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: Renato Tosello; Rachel Riera; Giuliano Tosello; Caroline Nb Clezar; Jorge E Amorim; Vladimir Vasconcelos; Benedito B Joao; Ronald Lg Flumignan Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-07-20